NO  SLAVERY  LN  NEBRASKA:  NO  SLAVERY  IN  THE  NATION:  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 

SPEECH 

OF 

GERRIT  SMITH, 

ON 

THE  NEBRASKA  BILL. 


IN  CONGRESS, 


So,  Mr.  Ciiairmax,  the  slavery  question  is  up 
again  !  —  up  again,  even  in  Congress  !  I  It  will 
not  keep  down.  At  no  bidding,  however  au- 
thoritative, will  it  keep  down.  The  President 
of  the  United  States  commands  it  to  keep  down. 
Indeed,  he  has,  hitherto,  seemed  to  make  the 
keeping  down  of  this  question  the  great  end  of  his 
great  office.  Members  of  Congress  have  so  far 
humbled  themselves,  as  to  pledge  themselves  on 
tliis  floor  to  keep  it  down.  National  political 
conventions-  promise  to  discountenance,  and  even 
to  resist,  the  agitation  of  slavery,  both  in  and 
out  of  Congress.  Commerce  and  politics  are  as 
afraid  of  this  agitation,  as  Macbeth  was  of  the 
ghost  of  Banquo  ;  and  many  titled  divines,  taking 
their  cue  from  commerce  and  politics,  and  being 
no  less  servile  than  merchants  and  demagogues, 
do  what  they  can  to  keep  the  slavery  question 
out  of  Bight.  But  all  is  of  no  avail.  The  saucy 
shivery  question  will  not  mind  them.  To  repress 
it  in  one  quarter,  is  only  to  have  it  burst  forth 
more  prominently  in  another  quarter.  If  you 
hold  it  back  here,  it  will  break  loose  there,  and 
rush  forward  with  an  accumulated  force,  that 
shall  amply  revenge  for  all  its  detention.  And 
this  is  not  strange,  when  we  consider  how  great 
is  the  power  of  truth.  It  were  madness  for  man 
to  bid  the  grass  not  to  grow,  the  waters  not  to 
run,  the  winds  not  to  blow.  It  were  madness 
for  him  to  assume  the  mastery  of  the  elements 
of  the  physical  world.  But  more  emphatically 
were  it  madness  for  him  to  attempt  to  hold  in 
his  puny  fist  the  forces  of  the  moral  world.  Can- 
ute's folly,  in  setting  bounds  to  the  sea,  was 
wisdom  itself,  compared  with  the  so  much  great- 
er folly  of  attempting  to  subjugate  the  moral 
forces.  Now,  the  power  which  is,  ever  and 
anon,  throwing  up  the  slavery  question  into  our 
unwilling  and  affrighted  faces,  is  truth.  The  pas- 
sion-blinded  and  the  infatuated  may  not  discern 
this  mighty  agent.  Nevertheless,  Truth  lives  and 
reigns  forever ;  and  she  will  be,  continually,  toss- 
ing up  unsettled  questions.  We  must  bear  in 
mind,  too,  that  every  question,  which  has  not 
been  disposed  of  in  conformity  with  her  require- 
ments, and  which  has  not  been  laid  to  repose  on 
hei  own  blessed  bosom,  is  an  unsettled  question. 


APRIL  6,  1854. 


Hence,  slavery  is  an  unsettled  question ;  and 
must  continue  such,  until  it  shall  have  fled  for- 
ever from  the  presence  of  liberty.  It  must  be  an 
entirely  unsettled  question,  because,  not  only  is  it 
not  in  harmony  with  truth,  but  there  is  not  one 
particle  of  truth  in  it.  Slavery  is  the  baldest  and 
biggest  lie  on  earth.  In  reducing  man  to  a  chat- 
tel, it  denies  that  man  is  man  ;  and,  in  denying, 
that  man  is  man,  it  denies,  that  God  is  God — for, 
in  His  own  image,  made  He  man — the  black  man 
and  the  red  man,  as  well  as  the  white  man.  Dis- 
torted as  are  our  minds  by  prejudice,  and  shriv- 
elled as  are  our  souls  by  the  spirit  of  caste,  this 
essential  equality  of  the  varieties  of  the  human 
family  may  not  be  apparent  to  us  all.  Were  we 
delivered  from  this  prejudice,  and  this  spirit, 
much  of  the  darkness,  which  now  obscures  our 
vision,  would  be  scattered.  In  proportion  as  we 
obey  the  truth,  are  we  able  to  discern  the  truth. 
And  if  all,  that  is  wrong  within  us,  were  made 
right,  not  only  would  our  darkness  give  place  to 
a  cloudless  light,  but,  like  the  angel  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, we  should  stand  in  the  sun. 

But  to  my  argument.  I  am  opposed  to  the  bill 
for  organizing  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  and 
Kansas,  which  has  come  to  us  from  the  Senate, 
because,  in  the  first  place,  it  insults  colored  men, 
and  the  Maker  of  all  men,  by  limiting  suffrage  to 
white  men.  I  am  opposed  to  it,  because,  in  the 
second  place,  it  limits  suffrage  to  persons,  who 
have  acquired  citizenship.  The  man,  who  comes 
to  us  from  a  foreign  land,  and  declares  his  inten- 
tion to  make  his  home  among  us,  and  acts  in  har- 
mony with  such  declaration,  is  well  entitled  to 
vote  with  us.  He  has  given  one  great  evidence 
of  possessing  an  American  heart,  which  our  na- 
tive could  not  give.  For,  whilst  our  native  be- 
came an  American  by  the  accident  of  birth,  the 
emigrant  became  one  by  choice.  For,  whilst  our 
native  may  be  an  American,  not  from  any  pref- 
erence for  America,  the  emigrant  has  proved,  that 
he  prefers  our  country  to  every  other. 

I  am  opposed  to  the  bill,  in  the  third  place,  be- 
cause, it  is  so  drawn,  as  to  convey  the  deceptive 
idea,  (I  do  not  say  intentionally  deceptive,)  that 
the  bill  recognizes  the  doctrine  of  non-interven- 
tion.   I  call  it  deceptive  idea  :  for,  in  point  of 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  :  NO  SLAVERY  } 


2 

fact,  the  bill  does  not  recognize  the  doctrine  of 
non-intervention.  It  dictates  to  the  territories 
the  form  of  their  government,  and  denies  to  them 
the  appointing  of  their  principal  officers.  The  bill 
is,  itself,  therefore,  the  most  emphatic  interven- 
tion. One-hundredth  as  much  intervention  on 
the  part  of  the  Federal  Government  with  a  Stato 
Government,  would  be  condemned  as  outrageous 
and  intolerable  intervention. 
I  But  I  must  be  frank,  and  admit,  that,  if  the  bill 
did  really  recognize  the  doctrine  of  intervention, 
I  should  still  be  opposed  to  it — ay,  and  for  that 
very  reason.  This  whole  doctrine  of  Congressional 
non-intervention  with  our  territories  I  regard 
as  perfectly  absurd.  Congressional  intervention 
with  them  is  an  imperative  and  unavoidable  duty. 
The  reasoning  to  this  end  is  simple  and  irresisti- 
ble. The  people  of  the  United  States  acquire  a 
territory.  Being  theirs,  they  are  responsible  for 
its  conduct  and  character:  —  and,  being  thus  re- 
sponsible, they  not  only  have  the  right,  but  are 
absolutely  bound,  to  govern  the  territory.  So 
long  as  the  territory  is  theirs,  they  can  no  more 
•  abdicate  sovereignty  over  it  than  a  State  can  ab- 
dicate sovereignty  over  one  of  its  counties.  But 
the  people  of  the  United  States  govern  through 
Congress ;  and,  hence,  in  respect  to  what  is  the 
people's,  there  must  be  Congressional  interven- 
tion. In  the  nature  of  the  case,  this  must  be  so. 
But  the  Constitution  also  shows,  that  it  must  be 
so.  The  Constitution  declares  the  fact  of  the 
government  of  the  Nation  by  ttself ;  and  it  also 
recognizes  the  fact  of  the  government  of  a  State 
by  itself.  But,  nowhere,  does  it  so  much,  as 
hint  at  the  government  of  a  territory  by  itself. 
On  the  contrary,  it  expressly  subjects  the  regula- 
tion or  government  of  territories,  to  Congress,  or, 
in  other  words,  to  the  whole  people  of  the  United 
States. 

I  add,  incidentally,  that,  in  the  light  of  the  fact 
of  the  American  people's  responsibility  for  the 
conduct  and  character  of  their  territories,  it  is 
absurd  to  claim,  that  New  Mexico  and  Utah  are 
to  be  exempt  from  slavery,  because  the  Mexican 
Government  had  abolished  slavery.  Whether 
there  can  be  legal  slavery  in  those  territories 
turns  solely  on  the  character  of  the  Constitution — 
turns  solely  on  the  question,  whether  that  paper 
is  anti-slavery  or  pro-slavery.  Again,  in  the 
light  of  this  sjame  fact,  we  see  how  absurd  it  is  to 
claim,  that  there  could,  under  the  continued  force 
of  the  French  or  Spanish  laws,  be  slavery  in  the 
territory  of  Louisiana,  after  we  had  acquired  it. 
If,  after  such  acquisition,  there  was,  or  could  be, 
legal  slavery  in  tire  territory,  it  was  solely  be- 
cause the  Constitution — the  only  law,  which  then 
attached  to  the  territory — authorized  it.  What, 
if  when  we  had  acquired  the  territory,  there  had 
been  in  it,  among  the  creatures  of  French,  or 
Spanish,  or  other  law,  the  suttee,  or  cannibalism — 
would  it  not  have  been  held,  that  these  abomina- 
tions were  repugnant  to  the  Constitution,  and, 
therefore,  Avithout  legal  existence  ?  Certainly. 

I  spoke  of  the  Constitution,  as  the  only  law, 
which  attaches  to  our  territories.    I  was  justi- 
fied in  this,  because  it  is  the  only  law  of  the  people 
l  of  the  United  States,  when  they  are  taken  as  a 
^whole,  or  a  unit.    When  regarded  in  sections, 


they  have  other  laws  also.  The  people  of  a  State 
have  the  laws  of  their  State,  as  well  as  the  laws 
of  their  Nation.  But,  I  repeat  it,  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  when  viewed  as  one,  have  no  other 
law  than  the  Constitution.  Their  Congress  and 
Judiciary  can  know  no  other  law.  The  statutes 
of  the  one  and  the  decisions  of  the  other  must  be 
but  applications  and  interpretations  of  this  one 
organic  law. 

Another  incidental  remark,  is,  that  it  is  wrong 
to  charge  the  opponents  of  this  bill  with  denying 
and  dishonoring  the  doctrine  of  "  popular  sover- 
eignty." Holding,  as  we  do,  that  to  the  people — 
the  whole  people— of  the  United  States  belong 
both  the  lands  and  the  sovereignty  of  their  ter- 
ritories, we  insist,  that  to  shut  them  out  from  gov- 
erning their  territories,  would  be  to  deny  and  dis- 
honor the  doctrine  of  "  popular  sovereignty."  It  is 
the  friends  of  the  bill,  who,  provided  it  is,  as  they 
claim,  a  bill  for  non-intervention,  that  are  to  be 
charged  with  violating  the  doctrine  of  <;  popular 
sovereignty,"  and  the  principles  and  genius  of 
democracy.  I  close,  under  this  head,  with  say- 
ing, that  should  real  non-intervention  obtain  in 
regard  to  these  territories,  it  would  be  a  very 
great  and  very  astonishing  change  from  our  pres- 
ent policy.  The  inhabitants  of  a  territory  have 
no  vote  in  Congress.  Nevertheless,  real  non-inter- 
vention would  vest  them  with  the  exclusive  dis- 
posal of  important  affairs,  which  are,  now,  at  the 
exclusive  disposal  of  Congress.  It  would  com- 
pensate them  for  their  present  political  disabili- 
ties with  an  amount  of  political  power  greatly 
exceeding  that  enjoyed  by  an  equal  handful  of 
the  people  of  a  State. 

To  prevent  misapprehension  of  my  views,  I 
add,  that  I  am  not  opposed  to  making  inhabitant 
of  the  territory  officers  of  the  territory.  As  far 
as  practicable,  I  would  have  none  others  for  its 
officers.  But,  whilst  the  territory  is  the  nation's, 
all  its  officers  should  be  acknowledged  to  be  offi- 
cers and  servants  of  the  nation. 

I  proceed  to  say,  that  I  am  opposed  to  this  bill, 
in  the  fourth  place,  because  it  looks  to  the  exist- 
ence of  slavery  in  these  territories,  and  provides 
safeguards  for  it.  In  other  words,  Congress  does, 
by  the  terms  of  the  bill,  open  the  door  for  slavery 
to  enter  these  territories.  The  right  of  Congress 
to  do  so  I  deny.  I  deny  it,  however,  not  because 
the  compromise  of  1820  denies  it.  Believing 
that  compromise  to  be  invalid,  I  cannot  honestly 
claim  anything  under  it.  I  disclaim  all  rights 
under  it,  for  the  simple  reason,  that  a  compro- 
mise conceived  in  sin  and  brought  forth  in  ini- 
quity, can  impart  no  rights  —  for  the  simple  rea- 
son, that  a  compromise,  which  annihilates  rights, 
cannot  create  rights.  I  admit,  that  the  compro- 
mise of  1820  concedes  the  indestructibleness  of 
manhood  north  of  the  line  of  36°  30',  excepting 
in  Missouri.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  atones 
for  this  concession  to  truth  and  justice  by  impli- 
edly leaving  men  south  of  that  line,  and  in 
Missouri,  to  be  classed  with  brutes  and  things.  I 
admit,  too,  that  they,  who  are  enjoying  the  share 
of  slavery  under  this  compromise,  and  who,  now, 
that  freedom  was  about  to  enter  into  the  enjoy- 
ment of  her  share  under  it  —  I  admit,  I  say,  that 
they  are  estopped  from  joining  me  in  pronouncing 


IN  TIIE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


3 


the  Missouri  compromise  invalid.  They  must 
first  surrender  their  share  under  the  compro- 
mise —  the}'  must  first  make  restitution  to  Free- 
dom —  ere  they  can,  with  clean  hands  and  un- 
blushing faces,  ask  her  to  forego  the  enjoyment 
of  her  share.  "  But  this  condition  is  impractica- 
ble ! "  will  some  of  my  hearers  say.  Oh  no ! 
nothing  is  impracticable,  that  is  right.  Exclude 
slavery  from  Missouri  and  Arkansas  for  thirty- 
four  years ;  and  then  freedom  and  slavery  will 
be  on  an  equal  footing,  and  they  can  make  a  new 
bargain.  [Laughter.] 

Nor  do  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  open 
the  door  for  slavery  into  these  territories,  because 
the  compromise  of  1850  virtually  denies  it.  I 
say  that  compromise  virtually  denies  it,  because 
it  distinctly  and  approvingly  recognizes  the  com- 
promise of  1820.  The  compromise  of  1850  is  as 
rotten  as  the  compromise  of  1820;  and  as  inca- 
pable of  imparting  rights.  And  here  let  me  say, 
that  I  rejoice  to  sec  the  pro-slavery  party  pour- 
ing express  contempt  on  the  compromise  of  1820, 
and  virtual  contempt  on  the  compromise  of  1850. 
And  why  should  not  all  men  pour  contempt  upon 
these  compromises,  and  upon  all  other  compro- 
mises, which  aim  u  to  split  the  difference "  be- 
tween God  and  the  devil  ?  [Great  laughter.] 
By  the  way,  we  have  striking  proof,  in  the  in- 
stance of  this  bill,  that,  in  the  case  of  such  com- 
promises, God's  share  and  all  are,  in  the  end,  very 
like  to  be  claimed  for  the  devil.  [Renewed 
laughter.] 

I  have  said  on  what  grounds  it  is  not,  that  I 
deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  open  the  door  for 
slavery  into  these  territories.  I  will  now  say  on 
what  ground  it  is.  I  deny  it  on  the  ground,  that 
the  Constitution,  the  only  law  of  the  territories, 
is  not  in  favor  of  slavery,  and  that  slavery  can- 
not be  set  up  under  it.  If  there  can  be  lawful 
slavery  in  the  States,  nevertheless  there  cannot 
be  in  the  territories. 

In  the  fifth  and  last  place,  I  am  opposed  to  the 
bill,  because  it  allows,  that  there  may  be  slavery 
in  the  States,  which  shall  be  formed  from  these 
territories. 

Hitherto,  when  the  slavery  question  has  been 
brought  up  in  Congress,  it  has  been  alleged,  (I 
(  say  not  how  truly  or  untruly,)  that  the  anti-sla- 
very party  has  brought  it  up,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  checking  slavery.  But,  now,  it  is,  confessedly 
on  all  hands,  brought  up  by  the  pro-slavery  par- 
ty, and  for  the  purpose  of  extending  slavery.  In 
tills  instance,  the  pro-slavery  party  is,  manifestly, 
the  instrument,  which  truth  has  wielded  to  sub- 
serve her  purpose  of  re-awakening  the  public 
mind  to  the  demands  and  enormities  of  slavery. 
Most  sincerely  do  I  rejoice,  that  the  pro-slavery 
party  is  responsible  for  the  present  agitation. 

A  Member.    I  do  not  admit,  that  it  is. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Strange  1  Here  is  a  movement 
for  the  immense  extension  of  slavery.  Of  course, 
it  is  not  the  work  of  the  anti-slavery  party.  And 
if  the  honorable  member,  who  has  just  interrupt- 
ed me,  is  authorized  to  speak  for  the  pro-sla- 
very party,  it  is  not  the  work  of  that  party  either. 
I  took  it  for  granted,  that  the  pro-slavery  party 
did  it.  But,  it  seems  it  did  not.  It  puts  on  the 
innocent  air  of  a  Macbeth,  and  looks  me  in  the 


face,  and  exclaims :  u  Thou  canst  not  say  I  did 
it !  "  [Laughter.]  Well,  if  neither  the  anti- 
slavery  party,  nor  the  pro-slavery  party,  did  it, 
who  was  it,  then,  that  did  it  ?  It  follows,  neces- 
sarily, that  it  must  be  the  work  of  the  Lord,  or 
the  devil.  [Laughter.]  But,  it  cannot  be  the 
work  of  the  Lord — for  the  good  book  tells  us : 
"  Where  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liber- 
ty"—  liberty,  not  slavery.  So,  this  Nebraska 
business  must  be  the  work  of  the  devil.  [Great 
laughter.]  But  logical  as  is  this  conclusion,  I 
am,  nevertheless,  too  polite  to  press  it.  I  prefer 
to  repudiate  the  alternative,  that  puts  the  respon- 
sibility on  the  Lord  or  the  devil ;  and  to  return 
to  my  original  assertion,  that  the  pro-slavery 
party,  and  not  the  anti-slavery  party,  is  respon- 
sible for  the  present  agitation.  Do  not  under- 
stand, that  I  would  not  have  the  anti-slavery 
party  agitate.  I  would  have  it  agitate,  and  agi- 
tate, and  agitate  forever.  I  believe,  that  the  agi- 
tation of  the  elements  of  the  moral  world  is  as 
essential  to  moral  health,  as  is  the  agitation  of 
the  elements  of  the  physical  world  to  physical 
health.  I  believe  in  the  beautiful  motto  :  "  The 
agitation  of  thought  is  the  beginning  of  truth." 
I  was  very  happy  to  hear  the  honorable  gentle- 
man of  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  Wright,]  express  his 
faith  and  pleasure  in  agitation.  Not  less  happy 
was  I  to  hear  the  honorable  gentleman  of  North 
Carolina,  [Mr.  Clln'Gman,]  approve  of  the  discus- 
sion of  Slavery.  Such  good  abolition  doctrine 
from  such  surprising  sources  was  very  grateful  to 
me.  Perhaps,  these  gentlemen  will  continue  to 
move  forward  in  that  blessed  upward  way,  on 
which  they  have  happily  entered  ;  and,  perhaps, 
ere  the  session  shall  close,  they  will  have  reached 
that  table-land  of  abolition,  on  which  it  is  my 
privilege  to  stand.  Let  me  assure  them,  for  the 
purpose  of  cheering  them  omvard,  that,  when 
they  shall  arrive  there,  they  shall  not  lack  rwy 
warm  greetings  and  the  cordial  grasp  of  my  hand. 
[Great  laughter.]  Sir,  you  must  permit  me  to 
indulge  some  hope  of  the  conversion  of  these 
gentlemen.  Indeed,  when  I  heard  the  honorable 
gentleman  of  North  Carolina  speak  of  himself  as 
41  an  independent " — as  a  party  of  one — as  in  that 
lone  condition,  in  which  he  had  so  recently  heard 
me  say,  that  I  find  myself — was  I  not  at  liberty 
to  imagine,  that  he  was  throwing  out  a  sly,  deli- 
cate hint  to  my  ear,  that  he  would  like  to  "join 
teams  "  with  me,  and  so  make  up  a  party  of  two  ? 
[Repeated  roars  of  laughter.]  I  do  not  forget, 
that,  at  the  close  of  his  speech,  he  said  some  very 
hard  things  against  us  naughty  abolitionists. 
But  how  could  I  be  sure,  that  he  did  not  say 
these  hard  things  for  no  other  purpose  than  to 
blind  all  around  him,  save,  of  course,  my  own 
apprehensive,  because  kindred  and  sympathizing, 
spirit,  to  that  fraternal  union  with  me,  which  I 
have  supposed  his  heart  was  then  meditating  ?  ■ 
I  said,  a  little  while  ago,  that  I  rejoice,  that  the 
pro-slavery  party  is  responsible  for  the  present 
agitation.  I  add,  that  I  am  half  reconciled  to 
this  attempt  to  extend  the  dominion  of  slavery, 
because  it  affords  us  so  inviting  an  opportunity 
to  inquire  into  the  title  of  slavery.  If  my  neighs 
bor  tries  to  rob  me  of  my  farm,  he,  at  lea^ 
J  affords  me  an  occasion  for  inquiring  into  th 


4 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  :  NO  SLAVERY 


tenure,  by  which  he  holds  his  own  farm.  Free- 
dom having  been  driven  by  slavery,  until  she 
has  surrendered  to  her  pursuer  nine  new  States ; 
and  until  slavery  claims,  as  wo  see  in  the  present 
Bill,  equal  right  with  herself  to  overspread  all 
the  unorganized  territory  of  the  nation;  it  is,  in 
my  judgment,  high  time  for  her  to  stop,  and 
to  turn  about,  and  to  look  slavery  in  the  face, 
and  to  push  back  the  war — ay,  and  to  drive  the 
aggressor  to  the  w*\]J,  provided  she  shall  find, 
that  slavery,  in  all  its  progress,  and  history,  is 
nothing  but  an  aggression  upon  liberty  and  law, 
and  upon  human  and  divine  rights ;  and  that,  in 
truth,  it  has  no  title  to  any  existence  whatever,  on 
any  terms  whatever,  anywhere  whatever.  This  is 
a  proper  stage  of  my  argument  for  saying,  that  wo 
all  know  enough  of  freedom  and  slavery  to 
know,  that  they  cannot  live  together  permanently. 
One  must  conquer  the  other.  American  slavery 
lacks  but  two  things  to  make  sure  of  her  victory 
over  American  liberty :  and,  from  present  indi- 
cations, she  is  determined  to  lack  them  no  longer. 
One  of  these  two  things  is  its  conceded  right  to 
overspread  all  our  unorganized  territory;  and 
the  other  is  its  conceded  right  to  carry  slaves 
through  the  free  States.  Let  slavery  succeed  in 
these  two  respects: — let  the  bill,  we  are  now 
considering,  become  a  statute;  and  let  the  final 
decision  in  the  Lemmon  case*  sustain  the  claim 
to  carry  slaves  through  the  free  States — ay,  and 
even  to  drive  coffles  of  slaves  through  them,  whip- 
in-hand;  thus  breaking  down  the  public  senti- 
ment of  those  States  against  slavery;  and  de- 
bauching and  wasting  it  by  familiarizing  it  with 
the  demands  and  exhibitions  of  slavery;  —  and 
then,  I  admit,  the  way  will  be  clear  for  slavery 
to  make  a  quick  and  easy  conquest  of  liberty. 

I,  again,  acknowledge  my  partial  reconcile- 
ment to  this  attempt  of  slavery  to  get  more — 
to  this  bold  push  for  all,  that  is  left,  so  far  as 
unorganized  territory  is  concerned.  Wo  have 
now  the  best  of  opportunities  for  trying  the  title 
of  slavery,  not  only  to  more — but,  also,  to  what 
it  already  had.  And,  now,  if  slavery  shall  come 
off  as  badly  as  the  dog,  who,  in  opening  his 
mouth  to  seize  another  piece  of  meat,  lost,  in  the 
deceitful  and  shadow-casting  stream,  the  piece 
he  already  had,  it  will  have  no  one  to  blame  for 
its  folly,  but  its  own  voracious  self.  It  should 
have  been  content  with  the  big  sharo — the  lion's 
share — which  it  already  had. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression.  I  said,  that 
I  am  opposed  to  the  bill,  because  it  allows,  that 
there  may  be  slavery  in  the  States,  which  shall 
be  formed  from  these  territories.  Why,  how- 
ever, should  I  be,  therefore,  opposed  to  it?  I 
will;  without  delay,  come  to  the  reason  for  my 
opposition.  My  time,  being  so  precious,  because 
so^  limited,  I  will  waste  none  of  it  in  apologies, 
circumlocutions,  or  skirmishes.    But  I  will,  at 


*  Mr.  Lemmon  was  emigrating,  some  eighteen 
months  ago,  with  his  slaves,  from  Virginia  to  Texas. 
The  vessel  touched  at  New  York;  and  a  judicial  de- 
cision in  favor  of  the  claim  of  the  slaves  to  froedom 
was  promptly  obtained,  on  the  ground,  that  the  State 
of  New  York  had  abolished  slavery.  The  State  of 
Virginia  is  now  intent  on  gottirg  this  decision  re- 
versed. 


once,  "take  the  bull  by  the  horns,"  and  declare, 
that  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  look  to  the 
existence  of  slavery  in  the  SHates,  that  shall  be 
formed  within  these  territories,  because  I  deny, 
that  there  can  be  Constitutional  slavery  in  any 
of  the  States  of  the  American  Union — future 
States,  or  present  States — new  or  old.  I  hold, 
that  the  Constitution,  not  only  authorizes  no  sla- 
very, but  permits  no  slavery ;  not  only  creates  no 
slavery  in  any  part  of  the  land,  but  abolishes  sla- 
very in  every  part  of  the  land.  In  other  words, 
I  hold,  that  there  is  no  law  for  American  slavery. 

I  had  not  intended  a  moment's  further  delay  in 
entering  upon  my  argument  to  prove,  that  the 
Constitution  calls  for  the  suppression  of  all 
American  slavery.  But  I  must,  before  entering 
upon  it,  beseech  the  Committee  to  hold  no  other 
member  of  Congress  responsible  for  it.  Let  the 
reproach  of  this  argument — of  this  foolish  argu- 
ment, if  you  please — nay,  of  this  insane  argument, 
if  you  prefer  that  epithet — fall  on  myself  only. 
Blame  no  other  member  of  Congress  for  it.  I 
stand  alone.  I  am  the  first,  and,  perhaps,  I  shall 
be  the  last,  to  declare  within  these  walls,  that 
there  i3  no  law  for  slavery.  I  say,  that  I  stand 
alone.  And,  yet,  I  am  not  alone.  Truth  is  with 
me.  I  feel  her  inspirations.  She  glows  in  my 
soul:  and  I  stand  in  her  strength. 

TIIERE  13  XO  LAW  FOR  AMERICAN  SLAVERY. 

Mansfield's  decision  in  the  Somerset  case 
established  the  fact,  that  there  was  no  law  fur 
slavery  in  England  in  1772: — and  if  none  in 
England,  then  none  in  America.  For,  by  the 
terms  of  their  charters,  the  Colonies  could  have 
no  laws  repugnant  to  the  laws  of  England. 
Alas !  that  this  decision  was  not  followed  up  by 
the  assertion  of  the  right  of  every  American  slave 
to  liberty !  Had  it  been,  then  would  our  land,  this 
da}r,  be  bright  and  blessed  with  liberty,  instead 
of  dark  and  cursed  with  slavery.  Alas,  that  the 
earlier  decision  than  Mansfield's  was  not  thus 
followed  up!  This  earlier  decision  was  of  the 
Superior  Court  of  Massachusetts,  and  was  of 
the  same  character  with  Mansfield's. —  [James 
vs.  Lachmere,  Washburn,  202.]  We  are  not  at 
liberty  to  regard  this  decision  of  the  Court  of 
Massachusetts  as  wrong,  because  Massachusetts 
slavery  was  not  abolished  in  consequence  of  it. 
It  is  no  more  wrong,  because  of  that  fact,  than  is 
Mansfield's,  because  of  the  like  fact.  Slavery  in 
England  survived  Mansfield's  decision.  Even 
seven  years  after  it,  and  advertisements,  such  as 
this,  could  be  found  in  English  newspapers  : 

"To  be  sold  by  auction  at  George  Dunbar's 
'  office,  on  Thursday  next,  the  20th  instant,  at  1 
1  o'clock,  a  black  boy,  about  fourteen  years  of 
'  age,  &c.    Liverpool,  Oct.  15,  1779." 

There  was  no  law  for  American  slavery,  after 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  adopted. 
Had  there  been  any  before,  this  paper  swept  it  all 
away.  Chief  Justice  Shaw  suggests,  that  it  was 
this  paper,  which  abolished  slavery  in  Massa- 
chusetts.— [Commonwealth  vs.  Thhmas  Aves.~\  No 
less  fatal  was  it,  however,  to  the  legality  of 
slavery  in  other  parts  of  the  nation.  The  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  is  the  highest  human 
authority  in  American  politics.    It  is  customary 


IN  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


5 


to  trace  back  the  origin  of  our  national  existence 
and  our  American  Union  to  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution, or  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  But 
our  national  existence  and  our  American  Union 
had  their  birth  in  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence. The  putting  forth  of  this  paper  was  the 
first  sovereign  act  of  the  American  people — their 
first  national  and  authoritative  utterance.  The 
Declaration  of  Independence  was  the  declaration 
of  the  fact  of  the  American  Union :  and  to  that 
paper  pre-eminently  are  we  to  look  for  the  causes 
aud  character  and  objects  of  the  American  Union. 
It  was  for  a  present,  and  not  for  a  prospective, 
Union — for  a  Union  already  decided  on,  and  not 
a  contingent  Union — that  our  Fathers  went 
through  a  seven  years  war.  It  is  noteworthy, 
that  the  object  of  the  Constitution,  as  set  forth 
by  itself,  is  not  to  originate  a  Union,  but  "to 
form  a  more  perfect  Union" — that  is,  to  improve 
on  an  already  existing  Union.  The  Articles  of 
Confederation  and  the  Federal  Constitution  were 
but  expedients  for  promoting  the  perpetuity,  and 
multiplying  and  securing  the  happy  fruits,  of  this 
Union.  Not  only  is  it  not  true,  that  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  and  the  Federal  Constitution 
are  paramount  to  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, but  it  is  true,  that  the  Congress  of  the  Con- 
federation and  the  Convention,  which  framed  the 
Constitution,  derived  all  their  legitimacy  and 
authority  from  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
You  might  as  well  talk  of  supplanting  the  Bible 
with  the  farthing  Tract  written  to  expound  it,  as 
talk  of  supplanting  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence with  any  subsequent  paper.  Truly,  did  one 
of  the  eminent  statesmen  [Gen.  Root]  of  my  State 
say:  "  That  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  the 
'  fundamental  law  of  the  land  in  all  those  States, 
'  Which  claimed  or  admitted,  that  that  instrument 
'  was  framed  by  their  agents;"  and  truly  did  an- 
other of  them  [John  C.  Spencer]  say,  that  it  is 
*  the  corner-stone  of  our  Confederacy,  and  is 
above  all  Constitutions  and  all  Laws/'  Yes,  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  is  the  very  soul  of 
every  legitimate  American  Constitution  —  the 
Constitution  of  Constitutions — the  Law  of  Laws. 

'  I  repeat  it — if  there  was  legal  slavery  in  this 
land  before  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
adopted,  there,  nevertheless,  could  be  none  after. 
The  great  truth  of  this  paper  is,  that  all  men 
are  created  equal,  and  have  inalienable  rights. 
Does  this  paper  speak  of  Civil  Government  as  ne- 
cessary? It  does  so,  because  this  great  truth 
makes  it  necessary.  It  does  so,  because  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  preserve  these  rights.  Does  this  paper 
claim  the  right  to  alter  or  abolish  the  Govern- 
ment? It  claims  it,  for  the  sake  of  this  great 
truth.  It  claims  it,  in  order  to  provide  better 
security  for  these  rights. 

I  do  not  forget,  that  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence has  fallen  into  disrepute  among  the  de- 
generate sons  of  the  men,  Avho  adopted  it.  They 
ridicule  it,  and  call  it  "  a  fanfaronade  of  nonsense." 
It  will  be  ridiculed,  in  proportion  as  American 
slavery  increases.  It  will  be  respected,  in  pro- 
portion as  American  slavery  declines.  Even ! 
Members  of  Congress  charge  it  with  saying,  that  j 
men  are  born  with  equal  strength,  equal  beauty, 
lad  equal  brains.    For  my  own  part,  I  can  im-  j 


pute  no  such  folly  to  Thomas  Jefferson  and  his 
fellow-laborers.  I  understand  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  to  say,  that  men  are  born 
with  an  equal  right  to  use  Avhat  is  respectively 
theirs.  To  illustrate  its  meaning,  at  this  point : — 
if  I  am  born  with  but  one  foot,  and  one  eye,  and 
an  organization  capable  of  receiving  but  one  idea, 
I  have  a  right  to  use  my  one  foot,  and  one  eye, 
and  one  idea,  equal  with  the  right  of  my  neigh- 
bor to  use  his  two  feet,  and  two  eyes,  and  two 
thousand  ideas. 

The  enunciation  of  this  great  centre  truth  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  would  have  jus- 
tified every  American  slave,  at  the  time  of  that 
enunciation,  in  claiming  his  liberty.  Suppose 
that,  after  the  adoption  of  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence, an  American  patriot  had  been  seized 
by  a  British  force,  and  put  on  trial  for  rebellion 
against  the  King,  would  not  that  paper  have  jus- 
tified him  in  calling  on  his  countrymen  to  deliver 
him?  Certainly;  for  that  paper  asserts  the  right 
to  break  away  from  his  allegiance  to  the  King, 
and  pledges  the  '!  lives,  fortunes,  and  sacred  hon- 
or" of  his  countrymen  to  maintain  that  right, 
But  suppose,  that,  after  the  adoption  of  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence,  an  American  slave  had 
asserted  his  right  to  liberty,  might  he  not,  as  well 
as  the  patriot  referred  to,  have  called  on  his  coun- 
trymen to  acknowledge  and  defend  his  right? 
Certainly;  and  a  thousand  fold  more  emphati- 
cally. For  the  right  of  the  patriot  to  dissolve  his 
allegiance  to  the  Crown  is  but  a  deduction  from 
the  great  centre  truth  of  the  paper,  that  all  men 
are  created  equal,  and  have  inalienable  rights. 
But  the  title  of  the  slave  to  his  liberty — that  is,  to 
one  of  these  inalienable  rights  —  is  this  great 
centre  truth  itself.  The  title  of  the  slave  to  his 
liberty  is  the  great  fountain-head  right.  But  the 
title  of  the  patriot  to  be  rescued  from  his  peril  is 
only  a  derivation  from  that  fountain-head  right. 

We  add,  as  a  reason,  why  this  great  centre 
truth  of  human  equality  and  inalienable  right  to 
liberty  is  entitled  to  supremacy  in  all  the  sha- 
ping and  interpretation  of  American  politics,  that, 
but  for  it,  and  for  the  place  it  occupies  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  there  would  have 
been  no  American  Constitution,  and  no  American 
nation,  and  no  American  liberty.  But  for  the 
commanding  principle  and  mighty  inspiration  of 
this  great  centre  truth,  the  colonists  could  not 
have  been  aroused  to  their  glorious  achievement. 
It  was  in  hoc  signo  —  it  was  by  this  sign — that 
our  fathers  conquered.  Again :  but  for  this  com- 
manding principle,  and  this  mighty  inspiration, 
the  aid — the  indispensable  aid — that  came  to  us 
from  foreign  shores,  would  not  have  come.  Said 
Lafayette  to  Thomas  Clarkson  :  "  I  would  never 
'  have  drawn  my  sword  in  the  cause  of  America, 
1  if  I  could  hare  conceived,  that  thereby  I  was 
1  founding  a  laud  of  slavery."  And  there  was 
Kosciusko,  at  whose  fall  "  Freedom  shrieked," 
and  who  provided  by  the  will,  written  by  himself, 
that  his  property  in  America  should  be  used  by 
his  anti-slavery  friend,  Thomas  Jefferson,  in  lib- 
erating and  educating  African  slaves.  Surely,  he 
would  not,  with  his  eyes  open,  hare  fought  to 
create  a  power,  that  should  be  wielded  in  behalf 
of  African  slavery !    Oh,  how  cruel  and  mean  a 


6 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  :  NO  SLAVERY 


fraud  on  those,  who  fought  for  American  liberty, 
to  use  that  liberty  for  establishing  and  extending 
American  slavery ! 

But  we  pass  on  from  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence to  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  sup- 
pose, for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  slavery 
survived  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Now, 
otlr  first  question  is  not  what  is  the  character  of 
the  Constitution,  in  respect  to  slavery,  but  what, 
from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  might  we  rea- 
sonably expect  to  find  its  character,  in  this  re- 
spect. Its  reasonably  expected  character  may  be 
thought  by  many  to  shed  light  upon  its  actual 
character.  Looking  at  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  are  we  to  expect  to  find  the  Constitution 
pro-slavery  or  anti-slavery?  —  made  to  uphold 
slavery,  or  to  leave  it  an  unprotected  outlaw  ? 

It  is  argued,  that  the  Constitution  must  be  on 
the  side  of  slavery,  for  the  reason,  that  it  did  not 
specifically  demand  the  instant  death  of  slavery. 
There  is,  however,  no  force  in  this  argument,  if  we 
reflect,  that  American  slavery  was,  at  that  time,  a 
dying  slavery  ;  and  that,  therefore,  even  those  of 
pur  statesmen,  who  were  most  opposed  to  it,  were 
generally  willing  to  leave  it  to  die  a  natural  death, 
rather  than  to  force  it  out  of  existence.  W ere  a 
man  condemned  to  be  hung — nevertheless,  if, 
when  the  day  for  hanging  him  had  arived,  he 
were  on  his  death-bed,  you  would  not  hang  him, 
but  you  would  leave  him  to  die  on  his  bed — to 
die  a  natural,  instead  of  a  violent,  death.  That 
our  fathers  did  not  anticipate  the  long  continu- 
ance of  slavery,  is  manifest  from  their  purpose 
disclosed  in  the  Preamble  of  the  Constitution  and 
elsewhere,  to  set  up  a  government,  which  should 
maintain  justice  and  liberty.  They  knew,  that 
no  government  could  prove  itself  capable  of  this, 
if  under  the  influence,  especially  the  overshad- 
OAving  influence,  of  slavery. 

It  is  further  argued,  that  the  Constitution  must 
be  on  the  side  of  slavery,  because  were  it  not  on 
that  side,  the  slaveholders  would  not  have  con- 
sented to  its  adoption.  But  they,  who  argue  thus, 
confound  the  slaveholders  of  that  day  with  the 
slaveholders  of  this.  They  forget,  that  the  slave- 
holders of  that  day  breathed  the  spirit  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  were  captivated 
by  the  doctrine  of  the  human  brotherhood.  They 
forget,  that  the  slaveholders  of  that  day  were  im- 
patient to  emancipate  their  slaves,  and  that  in 
Virginia,  where  the  number  of  slaves  was  so  much 
less  than  now,  they  were  emancipated,  at  that 
period,  at  the  rate  of  a  thousand  a  year.  They 
forget,  that  there  were  Abolition  Societies  in 
slave  States,  both  before  and  after  the  year 
1800.  They  forget,  that  Washington  and  Jefferson 
were  practical  emancipationists.  They  forget, 
that,  whilst  the  slaveholders  of  this  generation  are 
intent  on  perpetuating  and  extending  slavery,  the 
slaveholders  of  that  generation,  studied  how  to 
abolish  it,  and  rejoiced  in  the  prospect  of  its  speedy 
abolition.  They,  forget,  that,  whilst  the  slave- 
holders of  this  day  are  eager  to  overspread  our 
whole  national  territory  with  slavery,  all  the 
slaveholders  of  that  day  joined  with  all  other 
Americans  in  denying  it  new  territory,  and  exclu- 
ding it  from  every  foot  of  the  national  territory. 
They  forget,  that  all  the  States,  at  that  time,  with 


the  exception  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  ad- 
vocated the  anti-slavery  policy;  and  that  even 
these  two  States  could  hardly  be  said  to  have 
opposed  it.  And  what,  more  than  everything 
else,  they  should  not  forget,  is  that,  over  the  whole 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  slavery  was,  at  that 
day,  a  confessed  sin — a  sin  it  is,  true,  that  all  in- 
volved in  it  had  not  the  integrity  to  put  away  im- 
mediately— but  a  sin,  nevertheless,  which  all  of 
them  purposed  to  put  away,  in  no  very  distant 
future.  How  striking  the  contrast,  in  this  respect, 
between  the  circumstances  of  the  slaveholder  of 
that  time  and  the  slaveholder  of  this !  Now,  the 
Bible,  both  at  the  North  and  at  the  South,  is 
claimed  to  be  for  slavery  ;  and  now  the  church 
and  church-ministry,  at  the  South,  do  nearly  all 
go  for  slavery;  and  at  the  North,  do  nearly  all 
apologize  for  it.  Now,  slavery  is  right,  and  the 
abolition  of  it  wrong.  Now,  the  slaveholder  is 
the  saint,  and  the  abolitionist  the  sinner.  To  il- 
lustrate, in  still  another  way,  the  absurdity  of  in- 
ferring what  slaveholders  desired  and  did,  sixty  or 
seventy  years  ago,  from  what  they  desire  and  do 
now  : — the  pecuniary  motive  of  the  slaveholder  to 
uphold  slavery  is  now  very  strong.  Then,  it  was 
very  weak.  American  cane-sugar,  now  wet  with 
the  tears  and  sweat  and  blood  of  tens  of  thousands 
of  slaves,  was  then  scarcely  known.  American 
cotton,  which  now  fills  the  markets  of  the  world, 
was  then  in  none  of  the  markets  of  the  world. 
Then  it  was  not  among  the  interests  of  our  coun- 
try. Now,  it  is  its  dominant  interest.  It  sways 
church  and  state  and  commerce,  and  compels  all 
of  them  to  go  for  slavery.  Then  the  price  of  the 
slave,  that  now  sells  for  a  thousand  or  fifteen 
hundred  dollars,  was  but  two  hundred  dollars. 

I  need  say  no  more  to  show  how  liable  we  are 
to  misinterpret  the  desires  and  designs  of  our 
fathers,  in  regard  to  the  Constitution,  if  we  look 
through  the  medium  of  the  pro-slaver/  spirit 
and  interests  of  our  own  day,  instead  of  the  me- 
dium of  the  anti-slavery  spirit  and  interests  of 
their  day.  To  judge  what  character  they  would 
be  like  to  give  to  the  Constitution,  in  respect  to 
slavery,  we  must  take  our  stand-point  amidst  the 
anti-slavery  scenes  and  influences  of  that  period, 
and  not  amidst  the  pro-slavery  scenes  and  in- 
fluences, which  illustrate  and  reign  over  the 
present. 

I  readily  admit,  that  the  slaveholders  of  the 
present  day  would  not  consent  to  the  making  of 
any  other  than  a  pro-slavery  Constitution.  I 
even  admit,  that,  had  the  making  of  the  Consti- 
tution been  delayed  no  more  than  a  dozen  years, 
it  would,  (could  it  then  have  been  made  at  all,) 
have  been  pro-slavery.  I  make  this  admission, 
because  I  remember,  that,  during  those  dozen 
years,  Whitney's  cotton  gin,  (but  for  which  inven- 
tion American  slavery  would,  long  ago,  have  dis- 
appeared,) came  into  operation,  and  fastened  sla- 
very upon  our  country. 

In  the  light  of  what  I  have  said,  how  improba- 
ble it  is,  that  the  slaveholders  were  intent  on  hav- 
ing the  Constitution  made  to  uphold  slavery. 
But,  in  the  light  of  what  I  shall  now  say,  how 
improbable  it  is,  that  such  a  Constitution  was 
made.  Mr.  Madison  was  among  the  most  influen- 
tial members  of  the  Convention,  that  framed  the 


IN  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


7 


Constitution  ;  and  when  he  declared,  in  the  Con- 
vention, that  he  "thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in  the 
1  Constitution  the  idea,  that  there  could  be  prop- 
'  erty  in  man,"  not  one  person  objected  to  the  dec- 
laration. Indeed,  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
not  only  kept  it  clear  of  the  words  "slave"  and 
K  slavery"  and  of  all  words  of  similar  import,  but 
they  obviously  determined,  that,  if  after  ages 
should  make  the  humiliating  discovery,  that  there 
had  been  slavery  in  this  land,  there,  nevertheless, 
should  be  nothing  in  the  pages  of  the  Constitution 
to  help  them  to  such  discovery.  For  instance,  the 
word  "service"  occurs  repeatedly  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. But  only  four  days  before  the  Convention 
closed  its  labors,  the  word  "servitude"  was  struck 
out  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  word  "service" 
unanimously  adopted  in  its  place,  for  the  avowed 
reason,  that  the  former  expresses  the  condition 
of  slaves,  and  the  latter  the  obligations  of  free 
persons.  I  add  the  incidental  remark,  that  if  the 
Constitution  is  responsible  for  slavery,  it  is  so, 
because  of  the  knavery,  or  ignorance,  of  its  fra- 
mers. If  on  the  one  hand,  notwithstanding  their 
avowed  reason  for  the  substitution  of  "  service  " 
for  "  servitude,"  they  still  intended  to  have  the 
Constitution  thus  responsible,  then  they  were 
knaves  : — and  if,  on  the  other,  they  honestly  in- 
tended to  keep  the  Constitution  clear  of  this  guilty 
responsibility,  and  yet  failed  to  do  so,  then  does 
such  failure  betray  their  gross  ignorance — their 
gross  ignorance  of  the  true  meaning,  and  fit  use, 
of  words.  Happily,  for  those,  who  give  an  anti- 
slavery  construction  to  the  Constitution,  they  are 
under  no  necessity  and  no  temptation  to  inter- ( 
pret  the  motives  and  conduct  of  its  framers  in 
the  light  of  so  odious  an  alternative.  The  pro- 
slavery  party  alone  are  compelled  so  to  interpret 
them.  Now,  even  were  it  true,  that  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution,  and  all  of  them,  too,  sought 
to  smuggle  slavery  into  it — to  get  it  into  it,  with- 
out its  being  seen  to  be  got  into  it — nevertheless, 
how  could  they  accomplish  this  object,  which,  by 
the  restrictions  they  had  imposed  on  themselves, 
they  had  rendered  impracticable?  To  work  sla- 
very into  the  Constitution,  and  yet  preserve  for 
the  Constitution,  that  anti-slavery  appearance, 
which,  from  the  first,  they  had  determined  it 
should  wear,  and  which  they  knew  it  must  wear, 
or  be  promptly  rejected  by  the  people,  was  a3  im- 
possible, as  to  build  up  a  fire  in  the  sea. 

But  we  will  remaiu  no  longer  outside  of  the 
Constitution.  Indeed,  there  is  nothing,  aud  there 
can  be  nothing,  outside  of  it,  which  can  deter- 
mine, or  in  any  wise  affect,  its  character  on  the 
subject  of  slavery.  Nothing  in  the  history  of 
the  framing,  or  adoption,  or  operation,  of  the 
Constitution,  can  be  legitimately  cited  to  prove, 
that  it  is  pro-slavery  or  anti-slavery.  The  point 
is  to  be  decided  by  the  naked  letter  of  the  instru- 
ment, and  by  that  only.  If  the  letter  is  certainly 
for  slavery,  then  the  Constitution  is  for  slavery — 
otherwise  not.  I  say,  if  it  is  certainly  for  slavery : 
I  say  so,  because  slavery  realizes  the  highest  pos- 
sible conception  of  radical  injustice;  and  because 
there  is  no  more  reasonable  rule  of  interpretation 
than  that,  which  deuies,  that  a  law  is  to  be  con- 
strued in  favor  of  such  injustice,  when  the  law  i 
does  not  in  clear  and  express  lerniSj  embody  and  J 


sanction  it.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  have  adopted  this  rule  in  these  words : 
"  Where  rights  are  infringed,  where  fundamental 
'  principles  are  overthrown,  where  the  general 
1  system  of  the  laws  is  departed  from,  the  legisla- 
'  tive  intention  must  be  expressed  with  irresistible 
:  clearness  to  induce  a  court  of  justic  e  to  suppose 
'  a  design  to  effect  such  objects." — 2  Craneh,  390. 
The  same  enlightened  and  righteous  policy,  which 
led  Mansfield  to  say,  that  "  slavery  is  so  odious, 
•  that  nothing  can  be  suffered  to  support  it  but 
'  positive  law,"  obviously  demands,  that  no  law 
shall  be  cited  for  slavery,  which  is  not  expressly 
and  clearly  for  slavery. 

Much  stress  is  laid  on  the  intentions  of  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution.  But  we  are  to  make 
little  more  account  of  their  intentions  than  of  the 
intentions  of  the  scrivener,  who  is  employed  to 
write  the  deed  of  the  land.  It  is  the  intentions 
of  the  adopters  of  the  Constitution,  that  we  are 
to  inquire  after  ;  and  these  we  are  to  gather  from 
the  words  of  the  Constitution,  and  not  from  the 
words  of  its  framers — for  it  is  the  text  of  the 
Constitution,  and  not  the  talk  of  the  Convention, 
that  the  people  adopted.  It  was  the  Constitution 
itself,  and  not  any  of  the  interpretations  of  it, 
nor  any  of  the  talks  or  writings  about  it,  that  the 
people  adopted. 

Suppose,  that  the  bill,  now  under^  discussion, 
should,  unhappily,  become  a  statute — would  it 
be  necessary,  in  order  to  understand  it,  to  know 
what  the  honorable  gentleman  of  Kentucky, 
[Mr.  Preston,]  who  preceded  me,  said  of  it,  or 
what  I  am  saying  of  it  ?  Certainly  not.  If  I 
mean  what  I  say,  nevertheless,  my  words  could 
have  no  legitimate  bearing  on  the  interpretation 
of  the  statute.  But  my  speech  may  be  insincere. 
I  may,  as,  doubtless,  many  a  legislator  has  done, 
be  practicing  on  Talleyrand's  definition  :  "  Lan- 
guage is  the  art  of  concealing  the  thoughts  :  " — ■ 
and  pray,  what  help,  in  that  case,  to  the  just 
interpretation  of  the  statute,  could  my  speech 
afford  ? 

I  said,  that  the  Constitution  is  what  its  adopt- 
ers understood  it  to  be — not  what  the  distin- 
guished few  among  them — but  what  the  masses — 
understood  it  to  be  :  and  what  that  was,  the 
abolition  petition,  headed  with  the  name  of  Ben- 
jamin Franklin,  and  presented  to  the  first  Con- 
gress under  the  Constitution,  strikingly  indicated. 
That  it  was  not  successful  is  another  evidence, 
that  the  views  of  the  people  often  differ  from  the 
views  of  office-holders.  Or,  the  failure  was,  per- 
haps, more  properly  to  be  regarded,  as  an  evi- 
dence of  the  understanding,  which,  doubtless, 
did  exist  among,  at  least,  some  of  the  statesmen 
of  that  day,  that  slavery  was  not  to  be  killed  by 
the  immediate  application  of  the  powers  of  the 
Constitution,  but  was  to  be  allowed  to  linger 
through  that  age.  Whilst,  I  deny,  that  there  is  a 
word  in  the  Constitution  to  authorize  the  con- 
tinuance of  slavery,  I,  nevertheless,  admit  that 
there  was,  outside  of  the  Constitution,  the  under- 
standing to  which  I  have  referred — an  under- 
standing confined,  however,  to  a  few,  and  for 
which  the  masses  were  not  responsible.  A  sad 
mistake,  as  it  turns  out,  was  this  suffering  of 
slavery  to  drag  out  its  death-struck  and  feeble. 


8 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  :  NO  SLAVERY 


existence  through  that  generation,  in  which  the 
Constitution  was  adopted  ! — for,  it  was  in  that 
very  generation,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  in- 
vention already  spoken  of,  slavery  became  strong, 
and  began  to  demand  prolonged  life  and  vast 
powers  as  a  right — an  absolute  and  permanent 
right.  The  slut,  in  La  Fontaine's  fable,  <5n  the 
eve  of  becoming  a  mother,  implored  the  brief 
loan  of  a  kennel.  But  having  once  got  posses- 
sion of  it,  she  found  excuse  for  continuing  the 
possession,  until  her  young  dogs  were  grown  up. 
With  this  reinforcement,  it  is  not  strange,  that 
she  should  be  inspired  by  the  maxim,  "  might 
makes  right,"  and  should  claim,  as  absolutely  her 
own,  that  which  had  only  been  lent  to  her — and 
lent  to  her,  too,  so  generously  and  confidingly. 
This  fable  illustrates,  but  too  well,  the  successive 
feebleness,  and  growth,  and  usurpation  of  slavery. 

"We  begin  with  the  Preamble  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. This,  at  least,  is  anti-slavery  :  and  this 
tells  us,  that  the  Constitution  is  anti-slavery — 
for  it  tells  us,  that  one  thing,  for  which  the  Con- 
stitution was  made,  was  "  to  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty" — not  to  inflict,  or  sustain,  the  curse  of 
slavery — but  "to  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty." 
I  admit,  that  the  Preamble  is  not  the  Constitu- 
tion. I  admit,  that  it  is  but  the  porch  of  the 
temple.  Nevertheless,  if,  instead  of  the  Demon 
of  Slavery  coiled  up  in  that  porch,  we  see  the 
Goddess  of  Liberty  standing  proudly  there,  then 
we  may  infer,  that  the  temple  itself,  instead  of 
being  polluted  with  Slavery,  is  consecrated  to 
Liberty.  And  we  are  not  mistaken  in  this  in- 
ference. As  we  walk  through  the  temple,  we 
find,  that  it  corresponds  with  the  entrance.  The 
Constitution  is  in  harmony  with  the  Preamble. 

The  first  reference,  in  the  Constitution,  to  sla- 
very, is  in  the  apportionment  clause.  There  is, 
however,  no  reference  to  it  here,  if  the  language 
is  interpi-eted,  according  to  its  legal  sense,  or  if 
the  fraincrs  of  the  Constitution  were  intelligent 
and  honest.  It  must  be  remarked,  that  it  was 
from  this  clause,  that  they  struck  out  the  word 
"  servitude,"  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  saving  it 
from  being  a  pro-slavery  clause.  But,  in  point 
of  fact,  if  this  clause  does  refer  to  slavery,  it  is, 
nevertheless,  a  clause  not  to  encourage,  but  to 
discourage,  slavery.  The  clause  diminishes  the 
power  of  a  State  in  the  national  councils  in  pro- 
portion to  the  extent  of  its  slavery.  This  clause 
is,  in  truth,  a  bounty  on  emancipation.  Had  it 
provided,  that  drunkards  should  each  count  but 
three-fifths  of  a  man,  it,  surely,  would  not  be 
called  a  clause  to  encourage  drunkenness.  Or, 
had  it  provided,  that  they,  who  can  neither  read 
nor  write,  should  each  count  but  three-fifths  of 
a  man,  it,  surely,  would  hot  be  called  a  clause 
to  encourage  illiterateness.  In  the  one  case,  it 
would  be  a  bounty  on  sobriety,  and,  in  the  other, 
on  education. 

The  next  clause  of  the  Constitution,  which  we 
will  examine,  is  that,  which,  confessedly,  empow- 
ers Congress  to  abolish  the  foreign  slave-trade. 
I,  of  course,  mean  the  clause,  which  empowers 
Congress  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  na- 
tions. Yes,  the  slave  States  confessedly  conceded 
to  Congress  the  power  to  abolish  that  trade ; 
and  Congress  did  actually  abolish  it.    But,  it  is  | 


said,  that  the  provision,  respecting  "  migration 
or  importation,"  suspended  the  exercise  of  this 
power  for  twenty  years.  Under  no  legal  and 
proper  sense  of  it,  however,  does  this  provision 
refer  to  slaves.  But,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument, 
we  will  admit,  that  it  does,  and  that  it  had  the 
effect  to  suspend,  for  twenty  years,  the  exercise 
of  the  power  in  question.  What  then?  The 
suspension  could  not  destroy,  nor,  to  any  degree, 
impair,  the  essential  anti-slavery  character  of  the 
clause  under  consideration.  On  the  contrary, 
the  suspension  itself  shows,  that  the  clause  was 
regarded,  by  the  makers  of  the  Constitution,  as 
potentially  anti-slavery — as  one,  that  was  capa- 
ble of  being  wielded,  and  that,  probably,  would 
be  wielded,  to  suppress  the  slave-trade.  I  would 
add,  that  this  brief  suspension  goes  to  justify  the 
position,  that  American  slavery  was  looked  upon, 
in  that  day,  as  a  rapidly  expiring  practice — as  a 
vice,  that  would  die  out,  in  a  few  years.  There 
is  much  historical  evidence,  that  the  abolition  of 
the  slave-trade  was  looked  to  by  many,  if  not, 
indeed,  by  most,  at  that  time,  either  as  equiva- 
lent to,  or  as  sure  to  result  in,  the  abolition  of 
slavery.  The  power  given  to  Congress  to  abol- 
ish the  slave-trade.  Mr.  Dawes,  in  the  Massachu- 
setts Convention,  that  adopted  the  Constitution, 
declared  to  be  "  the  mortal  wound  "  of  slavery. 

Manifestly,  the  clause  of  the  Constitution, 
which  imparts  power  to  abolish  the  slave-trade, 
and  not  that,  which  briefly  suspends  the  exer- 
ercise  of  this  power,  gives  character  to  the  Con- 
stitution. If  my  neighbor  deeds  me  his  farm, 
only  reserving  to  himself  the  possession  of  it  for 
a  month,  (and  a  week  in  the  life  of  an  individual 
is  longer  than  twenty  years  in  the  life  of  a  na- 
tion,) it  would,  certainly,  be  very  absurd  to  call 
it  a  transaction  for  continuing  him  in  the  owner- 
ship and  possession  of  the  farm.  Or,  if  the  bar- 
gain, which  I  make  with  my  neighbor,  is,  that, 
after  a  week's  delay,  he  shall  come  into  my  ser- 
vice for  life,  it  is  certainly  not  this  little  delay, 
that  is  to  stamp  the  essential  and  important 
character  of  the  bargain. 

I  have  referred  to  only  a  part  of  the  clause, 
which  gives  power  to  Congress  to  abolish  the 
slave-trade ;  to  only  that  part,  which  respects 
the  foreign  slave-trade.  I,  now,  add,  that  this 
clause  gives  equal  power  to  abolish  the  inter- 
State  slave-trade.  And  if  it  does,  how  idle  must 
it  be  to  say,  that  a  Constitution,  which  empowers 
Congress  to  abolish,  not  only  the  foreign,  but  the 
domestic  slave-trade,  is  a  Constitution  for  sla- 
very I  To  abolish  the  domestic  slave-trade  is  to 
cut  the.  very  jugular  of  slavery. 

But  it  is  said,  that  the  power  "  to  regulate  com- 
merce among  the  several  States  "  is  not  a  power 
to  abolish  the  slave-trade  between  them.  But, 
if  it  is  not,  then  the  power  "  to  regulate  com- 
merce with  foreign  nations "  is  not  a  power  to 
abolish  the  African  slave-trade.  Nevertheless, 
Congress  held,  that  it  was ;  and,  in  that  day, 
when  slavery  was  not  in  the  ascendant,  every- 
body agreed  with  Congress. 

It  is  further  said,  that  the  Constitution  knows 
human  beings  only  as  persons;  and  that,  hence, 
the  inter-State  traffic  in  slaves,  being,  in  its  eye, 
but  migration  or  travel.  Congress  has  no  power 


IN  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


9 


to  suppress  it.  Then,  what  right  had  Congress 
to  abolish  the  African  slave-trade  ?  The  subjects 
of  that  traffic,  no  less  than  the  subjects  of  the 
inter-State  traffic,  are  persons.  Another  reply, 
which  we  make  to  the  position,  that  all  human 
beings  are  persons  in  the  eve  of  the  Constitution, 
is  that  it  cannot  lie  in  the  mouth  of  those,  who 
carry  on  the  traffic  in  slaves,  to  ignore  the  true 
character  of  that  traffic,  and  to  shelter  its  chat- 
tel-subjects under  the  name  of  persons.  And 
another  reply,  which  we  make  to  this  position  is, 
that  it  is  true ;  and  that,  hence,  the  traffic  in 
slaves,  every  slave  being  a  person,  is  unconstitu-  j 
tional.  If  the  Constitution  grants  power  to  Con-  j 
gress  over  commerce,  it  necessarily  defines  the 
subjects  of  the  commerce.  Such  definition  is 
involved  in  such  grant.  But  slaves  cannot  come 
within  such  definition — for  slaves  are  persons, 
and  persons  cannot  be  the  subjects  of  commerce. 
And  still  another  reply,  that  we  have  to  make  to 
those,  who  would  exempt  the  inter-State  traffic 
in  human  beings  from  the  control  of  Congress, 
on  the  ground,  that  Cougress  can  know  no  human 
being  as  a  chattel,  or  as  other  than  a  person,  is 
that  they  are  driven  by  logical  consistency  and 
logical  necessity  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  Con- 
stitution has  power  to  sweep  away  the  whole  of 
American  slavery.  The  Constitution  extends  its 
shield  over  every  person  in  the  United  States  ; 
and  every  person  in  the  United  States  has  rights 
specified  in  the  Constitution,  that  are  entirely 
incompatible  with  his  subjection  to  slavery. 

Ere  leaving  this  topic,  I  would  notice  an  objec- 
tion, which  is  frequently  heard  from  the  lips  of 
earnest  anti-slavery  men.  It  is,  that  the  Consti- 
tution omits  to  command  Congress,  in  terms,  to 
abolish  the  African  slave-trade,  even  at  the  end 
of  the  twenty  years.  But  why  do  they  fail  to  see, 
that  this  very  omission  marks  the  anti-slavery 
character  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  day. 
when  it  was  written  ?  Doomed  slavery  then 
needed  an  express  stipulation  for  its  respite.  But 
to  enjoin  anti-slavery  action  upon  those,  who 
could  be  held  hack  from  it  only  by  such  express 
stipulation,  was,  of  course,  deemed  superfluous. 
The  sentence  of  the  court  is.  that  the  mother  shall 
not  kiss  her  infant  for  twenty  days.  The  court 
need  not  enjoin,  that  she  shall  kiss  it,  after  the 
twenty  days  are  expired.  Her  love  for  her  infant 
makes  such  injunction  quite  superfluous.  So 
was  it  unnecessary  to  enjoin  upon  the  anti-sla- 
very zeal  of  otir  fathers  the  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade,  at  the  expiration  of  the  twenty  years. 
Scarcely  had  the  twenty  years  expired,  before 
that  zeal  forbade,  under  the  heaviest  penalties, 
the  continuance  of  that  accursed  trade.  An  an- 
cient nation  regarded  parricide  as  too  unnatural 
and  monstrous  a  crime  to  need  the  interdiction 
of  law.  And  our  fathers  regarded  the  African 
slave-trade  as  a  crime  so  unnatural  and  mon- 
strous, as  to  make  their  injunctions  on  Congress 
to  abolish  it  altogether  superfluous. 

We  have,  now,  disposed  of  two  of  the  three 
clauses  of  the  Constitution,  which  are  assumed 
to  be  pro-slavery,  viz  :  the  apportionment  clause, 
and  the  migration  and  importation  clause.  The 
xthh;d  refers  to  fugitive  servants,  but  certainly  not 


or  history  of  this  clause,  it  can  have  no  reference 
to  slaves.  No  one  pretends,  that  slaves  are 
expressly  and  clearly  defined  in  it ;  and,  hence, 
according  to  the  rule  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
which  I  have  quoted,  slaves  are  not  referred  to 
in  it.  Again,  none  deny,  that  the  terms  of  the 
clause  make  it  applicable  to  apprentices,  minor 
children,  and  others.  All  admit,  that,  in  the 
most  natural  use  of  language,  it  is  capable  of 
innocent  applications. 

The  clause,  under  consideration,  speaks  of  a 
"person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State, 
under  the  laws  thereof/'  Now,  unless  these 
laws  are  for  slavery,  the  "service  or  labor"  can- 
not be  slavery: — and  if  they  are  for  slavery,  then 
they  cannot  hold  any  person  to  slavery,  unless 
they  are  valid  laws.  But  they  are  not  valid  laws, 
unless  they  are  in  harmony  with  the  Constitu- 
tion. If  the  Constitution  is  against  slavery,  then 
pro-slavery  laws  are  but  nominal  laws.  It  will  be 
more  timely,  at  the  close  of  my  argument  than 
now,  to  say,  whether  the  Constitution  is  against, 
or  for,  slavery.  In  the  next  place,  the  clause 
speaks  of  a  person.  But,  as  we  shall  more  fully  see, 
there  are  rights  claimed  for  persons  by  the  Con- 
stitution itself,  which  must  ail  be  trodden  under 
foot,  before  persons  can  be  reduced  to  slavery. 
Another  reason,  why  the  fugitives  referred  to  in 
this  clause  are  not  slaves,  is.  that  "service  or 
labor"  is  "due"'  to  their  employer  from  these 
fugitives.  But  slaves,  by  every  American  defi- 
nition of  slaves,  are  as  incapable  of  owing,  as 
are  horses,  or  even  horse-blocks.  So  too.  by 
every  English  definition  of  slaves.  Says  Justice 
Best,  in  case  of  Forbes  vs.  Cochran:  "A  slave  is 
incapable  of  compact."  And  another  reason, 
why  this  clause  cannot  refer  to  slaves,  is,  that 
the  fugitives  in  it  are  held  by  the  laws  to  labor. 
But  slaves,  no  more  than  oxen,  are  held  by  the 
laws  to  labor.  The  laws  no  more  interpose  to 
compel  labor  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other. 
And  still  another  reason,  why  this  clause  is  not 
to  be  taken  as  referring  to  slaves,  is  the  absurd- 
ity of  supposing,  that  our  fathers  consented  to 
treat  as  slaves  whatever  persons,  white  or  black, 
high  or  low,  virtuous  or  vicious,  any  future  laws 
of  any  State  might  declare  to  be  slaves.  Shall 
we  of  the  North  be  bound  to  acquiesce  in  the 
slavery  of  our  children,  who  may  emigrate  to  the 
South,  provided  the  laws  of  the  South  shall  de- 
clare Northern  emigrants  to  be  slaves  ?  Nay, 
more,  shall  we  be  bound  to  replunge  those  chil- 
dren into  slavery,  if  they  escape  from  it  ?  But 
all  this  we  shall  be  bound  to  do,  if  the  pro-sla- 
very interpretation  of  the  clause  in  question  is 
the  true  interpretation.  Ay,  and  in  that  case,  we 
shall  be  bound  to  justify  even  our  own  slavery, 
should  we  be  caught  at  the  South,  and  legis- 
lated into  slavery.  This  intimation,  that  slavery 
may  yet  take  a  much  wider  range  in  supply- 
ing itself  with  victims,  is,  by  no  means,  extrava- 
gant and  unauthorized.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  opened  a  wide  door  to  this  end, 
in  the  case  of  Strader  and  others  against  Gorham, 
some  three  years  ago.  In  that  case,  the  court 
claimed,  that  a  State  "has  an  undoubted  right  to 
;  determine  the  status,  or  domestic  and  social  con- 
dition, of  the  persons  domiciled  with jiLltiL. tarn- 


10 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  :  NO  SLAVERY 


1  torjv'  By  the  way,  this  doctrine  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  that  there  are  no  natural  rights ;  and 
that  all  rights  stand  but  in  the  concessions  and 
uncertainties  of  human  legislation,  is  a  legitimate 
outgrowth  of  slavery.  For  slavery  ^is  a  war  upon 
nature,  and  is  the  devourer  of  the  rights  of  na- 
ture ;  and  claims,  that  all  rights,  and  all  inter- 
ests, natural  and  conventional,  shall  accommo- 
date themselves  to  its  demands. 

We  need  spend  no  more  time  on  the  letter  of 
this  clause.  We  will,  now,  look  at  its  history.  It  is 
a  well-nigh  universal  impression,  that  this  clause 
is  one  of  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution. 
But  there  is  not  the  slightest  foundation  in  truth 
for  this  impression.  In  none  of  the  numerous  j 
plans  of  a  Constitution,  submitted  to  its  framers, 
was  the  subject-matter  of  this  clause  mentioned. 
Indeed,  it  was  not  mentioned  at  all,  until  twenty 
days  before  the  close  of  the  Convention.  This 
clause,  when  its  insertion  was  first  moved,  con- 
tained the  word  ;>  slave."  But,  with  that  word  in 
it,  it  met  with  such  strenuous  opposition,  as  to 
compel  the  immediate  withdrawal  of  the  motion. 
The  next  day,  however,  it  was  offered  again,  but 
with  the  word  "  slave "  struck  out.  In  this 
amended  and  harmless  form,  it  was  adopted  im- 
mediately, without  debate,  and  unanimously.  I 
add,  by  the  way,  that  no  one  believes,  that  a 
clause  providing,  in  express  terms,  for  the  sur- 
render of  the  whole  American  soil  to  the  chasing 
down  and  enslaving  of  men,  women,  and  children, 
could  ever  have  gained  the  vote  of  the  Conven- 
tion ;  or  that,  if  it  had.  the  Constitution,  with 
such  a  disgusting  blot  upon  it,  could  ever  have 
been  adopted. 

Another  reason  for  not  claiming  this  clause  to 
be  pro-slavery  is,  that  the  American  people  did, 
in  all  probability,  regard  the  word  "  service  "  as 
expressing  the  condition  of  freemen.  So,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  members  of  the  Constitutional 
Convention,  regarded  it :  and,  inasmuch  as  they 
came  together  from  all  parts  of  the  country,  and 
represented  all  classes  and  sections  of  the  Amer- 
ican people,  is  it  not  a  fair  inference,  that  they 
used  language  in  the  sense  approved  by  the 
American  people  ? 

We  have,  now,  examined  those  parts  of  the 
Constitution,  which  are  relied  on  to  give  it  a 
pro-slavery  character ;  and  we  find,  that  they 
are  not  entitled  to  give  it  this  character.  We 
proceed  to  glance  at  some,  and  at  only  some,  of 
those  parts  of  the  Constitution,  which  clearly 
prove  its  anti-slavery  character  ;  which  are  ut- 
terly incompatible  with  slavery ;  and  which, 
therefore,  demand  its  abolition. 

1st.  "  Congress  has  power  to  provide  for  the  common 
defence  and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States." 

But  Congress  has  not  this  power,  if  the  obsta- 
cles of  slavery  may  be  put  in  the  way  of  its  exer- 
cise. A  man  cannot  be  said  to  have  law  for 
driving  his  carriage  through  the  streets,  if  an- 
other man  has  law  for  blocking  its  wheels.  If 
the  States  may  establish  the  most  atrocious 
wrongs  within  their  borders,  and  thus  create  an 
atmosphere,  in  which  the  Federal  Government 
cannot  "  live  and  move  and  have  its  being ; " 
then,  within  those  borders,  the  Federal  Govern- 
meat  may  be  reduced  to  a  nullity.    The  power 


referred  to  in  this  clause  Congress  will  never 
have  faithfully  exercised,  so  long  as  it  leaves 
millions  of  foes  in  the  bosom  of  our  country. 
By  enrolling  the  slaves  in  the  militia,  and  yield- 
ing to  their  Constitutional  right  "  to  keep  and 
bear  arms" — which  is,  in  effect,  to  abolish  sla- 
very— Congress  would  convert  those  foes  into 
friends.  The  power  in  question,  Patrick  Henry, 
who  was  then  the  orator  of  America,  held  to  be 
sufficient  for  abolishing  slavery.  In  the  Virginia 
Convention,  which  passed  upon  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, Mr.  Henry  said :  "  May  Congress  not 
f  say,  that  every  black  man  must  fight  ?  Did  we 
'  not  see  a  little  of  this,  the  last  war  ?  We  were 
j  '  not  so  hard  pushed  as  to  make  emancipation 
'  general.  But  acts  of  Assembly  passed,  that 
'  every  slave,  who  would  go  to  the  army,  should 
'  be  free.  Another  thing  will  contribute  to  bring 
'  this  event  about.  Slavery  is  detested.  We  feel 
'  its  fatal  effects.  We  deplore  it  with  all  the  pity 
'  of  humanity.  Let  all  these  considerations,  at 
'  some  future  period,  press  with  full  force  on  the 
'  minds  of  Congress.  They  will  read  that  pa- 
'  per,  (the  Constitution,)  and  see  if  they  have 
'  power  of  manumission.  And  have  they  not, 
'  sir  ?  Have  they  not  power  to  provide  for  the 
1  general  defence  and  welfare?  May  they  not 
'  think,  that  they  call  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  ? 
'  May  they  not  pronounce  all  slaves  free  ? — and 
1  will  they  not  be  warranted  by  that  power? 
'  There  is  no  ambiguous  implication  or  logical 
{  deduction.  Tlu  paper  speaks  to  the  point.  They 
'  have  the  power  in  clear  and  unequivocal  terms; 
1  and  will  clearly  and  certainly  exercise  it." 

2d.  '-Congress  has  power  to  impose  a  capitation 
tax." 

Manifestly,  Congress  can  pay  no  respect  in  this 
case  to  the  distinction  of  bond  and  free.  It  can 
look  for  the  paymeut  of  the  tax  to  none  other 
than  the  subjects  of  the  tax.  But  if  any  of  them 
do  not  own  themselves,  they  cannot  owe  the  tax. 
This  clause  implies,  therefore,  the  self-ownership 
of  men,  and  not  their  ownership  by  others. 

3d.  "Congress  shall  have  power  to  establish  a  uni- 
form rule  of  naturalization." 

But  this  power,  if  faithfully  exercised,  is  fatal 
to  slavery.  For,  if  our  three  millions  and  a  half 
of  slaves  are  not  already  citizens,  Congress  can, 
under  this  power,  make  them  such,  at  any  time. 
It  can  confer  on  them,  as  easily  as  on  foreigners, 
the  rights  of  citizenship.  I  add,  that,  had  the 
slaveholders  wished,  (as  however  they  did  not,) 
to  perpetuate  slavery,  they  would,  if  they  could, 
have  qualified  this  absolute  and  unlimited  power 
of  naturalization,  which  the  Constitution  confers 
on  Congress. 

4th.  "  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  promote 
the  progress  of  science  and  useful  arts  by  securing  for 
limited  times  to  authors  and  inventors  the  exclusive 
right  to  their  respective  writings  and  discoveries." 

This  clause  clearly  authorizes  Congress  to  en- 
courage and  reward  the  genius,  as  well  of  him, 
who  is  called  a  slave,  as  of  any  other  person. 
One  person,  as  much  as  another,  is  entitled  to  a 
copy-right  of  his  book  and  to  a  patent  for  his 
meritorious  invention.  Not  so,  however,  if  there 
may  be  slavery.  For  the  victim  of  slayery^has 
no  richts *u~       "  ~  1  


IN  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


11 


less  than  the  productions  of  his  hands,  belong  to 
his  master. 

5th.  " Congress  shall  have  power  to  declare  war, 
grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal- — to  raise  and 
support  armies — to  provide  and  maintain  a  navy." 

It  necessarily  follows,  from  the  unconditional 
power  of  Congress  to  carry  on  war,  that  it  can 
contract  with  whom  it  pleases — white  or  black, 
employer  or  employed — to  tight  its  battles  ;  and 
can  secure  to  each  his  wages,  pension,  or  prize 
money.  But  utterly  inconsistent  with  this  abso- 
lute power  of  Congress  is  the  claim  of  the  slave- 
holder to  the  time,  the  earnings,  the  will,  the  all, 
of  the  sailor,  or  soldier,  whom  he  calls  his  slave. 

6th.  "The  United  States  shall  guaranty  to  every 
State  in  this  Union  a  republican  form  of  government.'1 

It  is  a  common  opinion,  that  the  General  Gov- 
ernment should  not  concern  itself  with  the  inter- 
nal policy  and  arrangements  of  a  State.  But 
this  opinion  is  not  justified  by  the  Constitution. 
The  case  may  occur,  where  the  neglect  thus  to 
concern  itself  would  involve  its  oAvn  ruin,  as  well 
as  the  greatest  wrong  and  distress  to  the  people 
of  a  State.  How  could  the  General  Government 
be  maintained,  if  in  one  State  suffrage  were  uni- 
versal, and  in  another  conditioned  on  the  posses- 
sion of  land,  and  in  another  on  the  possession  of 
money,  and  in  another  on  the  possession  of  slaves, 
and  in  another  on  the  possession  of  literary  or 
scientific  attainments,  and  in  another  on  the  pos- 
session of  a  prescribed  religious  creed,  and  if  in 
others  it  were  conditioned  on  still  other  posses- 
sions and  attainments  ?  How  little  resemblance 
and  sympathy  there  would  be,  in  that  case, 
between  the  Congressional  representatives  of  the 
different  States  !  How  great  would  be  the  dis- 
cord in  our  National  Councils  !  How  speedy  the 
ruin  to  our  National  and  subordinate  interests  ! 
In  such  circumstances,  the  General  Government 
would  be  clearly  bound  to  insist  on  an  essential 
uniformity  in  the  State  Governments.  But  what 
would  be  due  from  the  General  Government  then, 
is  emphatically  due  from  it  now.  Our  nation  is 
already  brought  into  great  peril  by  the  slavo- 
cratic  element  in  its  councils ;  and  in  not  a  few 
of  the  States,  the  white,  as  well  as  the  black, 
masses  are  crushed  by  that  political  element. 
Surely  the  nation  is  entitled  to  liberation  from 
this  peril ;  and,  surely,  these  masses  have  a  per- 
fectly Constitutional,  as  well  as  most  urgent, 
claim  on  the  nation  for  deliverance  from  the 
worst  of  despotisms,  and  for  the  enjoyment  of  a 
"republican  form  of  government." 

7th.  "  No  State  shall  pass  any  bill  of  attainder." 

But  what  is  so  emphatic,  and  causeless,  and 
merciless  a  bill  of  attainder,  as  that,  which 
attaints  a  woman  with  all  her  posterity  for  no 
other  reason  than  that  there  is  African  blood  in 
her  veins  ? 

8th.  "  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
shall  not  be  suspended,  unless  when,  in  cases  of  rebel- 
lion or  invasion,  the  public  safety  may  require  it." 

Blackstone  pronounces  this  writ  "the  most 
celebrated  writ  of  England  and  the  chief  bul- 
wark of  the  Constitution."  One  of  his  editors, 
Mr.  Christian,  says,  that  u  it  is  this  writ,  which 
x  W$*£&  slavery  impossible  in  England/'  Equally 
•naakp  slavery  in 


America.  And  in  both  countries  the  impossibil- 
ity springs  from  the  fact,  that  the  writ  is  entirely 
incompatible  with  the  claim  of  property  in  man. 
In  the  presence  of  such  a  claim,  if  valid,  this 
writ  is  impotent,  for  if  property  can  be  plead  in 
the  prisoner,  (and  possession  is  proof  of  owner- 
ship.) the  writ  is  defeated. 

Slavery  cannot  be  legalized  short  of  suspend- 
ing the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  in  the  case  of  the 
slaves.  But,  inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  pro- 
vides for  no  such  suspension,  there  is  no  legal 
slavery  in  the  nation. 

1  add,  that  the  Federal  Government  should 
see  to  it,  that,  in  every  part  of  the  nation,  where 
there  are  slaves,  if  need  be,  in  every  county,  or 
even  town,  there  are  Judges  who  will  faithfully 
use  this  writ  for  their  deliverance. 

9th.  "  No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty, 
or  property,  without  due  process  of  laiv." 

Let  this  provision  have  free  course,  and  it  puts 
an  end  to  American  slavery.  It  is  claimed,  how- 
ever, that,  inasmuch  as  the  slave  is  held  by  law, 
(which,  in  point  of  fact,  he  is  not,)  and,  therefore, 
u  by  due  process  of  law."  nothing  can  be  gained 
for  him  from  this  provision.  But,  inasmuch,  as 
this  provision  is  an  organic  and  fundamental 
law,  it  is  not  subject  to  any  other  law.  but  is  par- 
amount to  every  other  law.  Moreover,  it  is  a 
great  mistake  to  confound  the  laws,  so  called,  by 
which  persons  are  held  in  slavery,  with  "  duo 
process  of  law." 

Justice  Bronson  says  [Hill's  Reports,  IV,  146] 
of  this  part  of  the  Constitution  : 

"  The  meaning  of  the  section  then  seems  to  be,  that 
1  no  member  of  the  State  shall  be  disfranchised,  or 
1  deprived  of  any  of  his  rights  or  privileges,  unless 
1  the  matter  shall  be  adjudged  against  him,  upon  trial 
'  had.  according  to  the  course  of  the  common  law." 

He  adds: 

"  The  words  '  due  process  of  law,'  in  this  place 
'  cannot  mean  less  than  a  prosecution  or  suit, 
•  instituted  and  conducted,  according  to  the  pre- 
'  scribed  forms  and  solemnities  for  ascertaining 
'  guilt,  or  determining  the  title  to  property." 

Lord  Coke  explains  "  due  process  of  law  "  to 
be,  11  by  indictment  or  presentment  of  good  and 
'  lawful  men,  where  such  deeds  be  done  in  due 
'  manner,  or  by  suit  original  of  the  common 
'  law." 

The  defenders  of  the  Constitutionality  of  State 
slavery  are  driven  to  the  position,  that  such  spe- 
cific denials  of  the  definition  and  violation  of 
rights,  as  I  have  just  quoted  from  one  of  the 
amendments  of  the  Constitution,  are  limitations 
upon  the  power  of  the  Federal  Government  only. 
They  say.  that  it  is  to  be  inferred,  that  the  limita- 
tions are  on  Federal  power,  when  the  Constitu- 
tion does  not  point  out  whether  they  are  on  Fed- 
eral or  State  power.  Whence,  however,  is  this 
inference  justified  ?  From  the  fact,  it  is  answered, 
that  the  Federal  power  is  the  subject-matter  of 
the  Constitution  —  is  that,  of  which  it  treats  — 
is  that,  which  it  constitutes.  But  the  Constitu- 
tion is  a  paper,  not  merely  for  establishing  the 
Federal  Government,  and  prescribing  its  charac- 
ter and  limits.  It  is,  also,  a  paper  for  determin- 
ing the  boundaries  of  State  authority.  And  the 
latter  purpose  is  no  less  important,  Qrjje.cessajra 


12 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  !  NO  SLAVERY 


than  the  former.  Happily,  however,  the  original 
Constitution  left  nothing  to  inference  in  this  mat- 
ter. It  does  not  need  a  more  frequent  recurrence 
of  the  word  "  Congress "  in  them,  to  make  it 
entirely  plain,  that  the  eighth  and  ninth  sections 
of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution  are  devoted 
to  an  enumeration  of  the  powers  and  disabilities 
of  Congress.  Nor  is  it  less  plain,  that  the  tenth 
section  of  this  article  is  taken  up  with  the  enu- 
meration of  the  disabilities  of  the  States.  I 
have  seen  an  old  copy  of  the  Constitution,  printed 
in  Virginia,  in  which  "  Powers  of  Congress"  is 
at  the  head  of  the  eighth  section,  and  "  Restric- 
tions upon  Congress  "  is  at  the  head  of  the  ninth 
section,  and  <; Restrictions  upon  respective  States" 
is  at  the  head  of  the  tenth  section.  The  repeti- 
tion of  the  word  "  State,"  in  the  tenth  section, 
would  have  been  as  unnecessary  as  the  repetition 
of  the  word  ''Congress"  in  the  ninth  section, 
had  the  denial  of  State  powers  been  preceded  by 
the  enumeration  of  State  powers,  as  is  the  denial 
of  Federal  powers  by  the  enumeration  of  Federal 
powers. 

So  far,  then,  as  these  sections  are  concerned, 
it  is  not  left  to  the  looseness  of  inference  to 
determine  whether  the  Constitution  is  applicable 
to  a  State,  or  to  the  Nation.  One  of  the  sections 
contains  limitations  on  the  Federal  Government. 
The  next  contains  limitations  on  another  Govern- 
ment— another  Government,  since  the  latter  limit- 
ations are,  to  some  extent,  identical  with  the 
former,  and  would,  of  course,  not  be  repeated, 
were  but  one  Government  in  view.  What,  how- 
ever, but  a  State  Government,  could  this  other 
Government  be  ?  And  yet,  to  avoid  all  necessity 
of  inference,  the  word  "  State  "  is  repeated  sev- 
eral times  in  connection  with  these  latter  limita- 
tions. And,  now,  we  ask  where  in  the  original 
Constitution,  either  before  or  after  the  three  sec- 
tions, which  we  have  referred  to,  is  it  left  to  be 
inferred,  whether  the  powers  granted  are  National 
or  State  powers  ?  Nowhere  is  there  such  uncer- 
tainty. 

We  will  now  take  up  the  amendments  of  the 
Constitution.  It  is  in  them,  that  we  find  those 
specific  denials  of  the  deprivation  and  violation 
of  rights,  which  forbid  slavery — such  denials,  for 
instance,  as  that  "  No  person  shall  be  deprived  of 
'  life,  or  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process 
1  of  law." 

Twelve  articles  of  amendment  were  proposed 
by  the  first  Congress.  The  first  three  and  the 
last  two  do,  in  terms,  apply  to  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, and  to  that  only.  In  the  case  of  most 
of  the  remaining  seven,  their  application  is  a 
matter  of  inference.  Whilst,  however,  it  would 
be  a  gross  violation  of  the  laws  of  inference  to 
say,  that  they  apply  to  the  Federal  Government 
only,  it  would  be  m  perfect  accordance  with 
these  laws  to  say,  that,  inasmuch  as  a  part  of  the 
amendments  refer  expressly  to  that  Government 
only,  the  remainder  refer  to  both  the  Federal  and 
State  Governments,  or  to  State  Governments 
only. 

Because  the  first  one  of  the  adopted  amend- 
ments refers  expressly  to  the  Federal  Government, 
and  to  that  only,  there  are,  probably,  many  per- 
it  fo-r  crrAntprt  that  the  other 


amendments  follow  this  lead  of  the  first,  and 
have  the  same  reference  as  the  first.  They  would 
not  take  this  for  granted,  however,  did  they  know, 
that  this  first'  of  the  adopted  amendments  was 
the  third  of  the  proposed  amendments  ;  and  that 
it  came  to  be  numbered  the  first,  only  because 
the  preceding  two  were  rejected.  It  is  entitled, 
therefore,  to  give  no  lead  and  no  complexion  to 
the  amendments,  which  follow  it.  And  this  con- 
clusion is  not  weakened,  but  strengthened,  by 
the  fact,  that  these  two  amendments  both  ex- 
pressly referred  to  the  Federal  Government.  I 
would  here  add,  what  may  not  be  known  to  all, 
that  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  of  the  adopted 
amendments  were  proposed  by  Congress  after  the 
other  ten  were  adopted. 

In  addition  to  the  reason  we  have  given,  why 
a  part  of  the  amendments  of  the  Constitution 
refer  either  to  the  State  Governments  exclusively, 
or  to  both  the  Federal  and  State  Governments, 
is  that,  which  arises  from  the  fact,  that  they  are, 
in  their  nature  and  meaning,  as  applicable  to  a 
State  Government,  as  to  the  Federal  Government. 
To  say,  that  such  amendments,  as  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth,  were  not  intended  to  apply  to 
the  whole  nation,  and  were  intended  to  apply 
only  to  the  little  handful  of  persons  under  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Government, 
is  to  say  what  cannot  be  defended.  Again,  if 
there  be  only  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  the 
fifth  amendment  refers  exclusively  to  the  Federal 
Government,  it  should  be  construed,  as  referring 
to  State  Governments  also  ;  for  human  liberty  is 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  every  reasonable  doubt ; 
and  this  is  a  case,  in  which  human  liberty  is 
most  emphatically  concerned. 

We  have  no  right  to  go  out  of  the  Constitu- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  learning  whether  the 
amendments  in  question  are,  or  are  not,  limita- 
tions on  State  Governments.  It  is  enough,  that 
they  are  in  their  terms,  nature,  and  meaning,  as 
suitably,  limitations  on  the  Government  of  a 
State,  as  on  the  National  Government.  Being 
such  limitations,  we  are  bound  to  believe,  that 
the  people,  when  adopting  these  amendments  by 
their  Legislatures,  interpreted  them,  as  having 
the  two-fold  application,  which  we  claim  for  them. 
Being  such  limitations,  we  must  insist,  whether 
our  lathers  did,  or  did  not,  on  this  two-fold  ap- 
plication. Being  prohibitions  on  the  Government 
of  a  State,  as  well  as  on  the  National  Govern- 
ment, we  must,  in  the  name  of  religion  and  rea- 
son, of  God  and  man,  protest  against  limiting 
the  prohibition  to  the  National  Government  for 
the  exceedingly  wicked  purpose  of  continuing 
the  bondage  of  millions  of  our  fellow-men. 

Had  we  the  right,  by  reason  of  any  obscurity 
in  the  teachings  of  the  Constitution  on  the  point 
under  consideration,  or  from  any  other  cause,  to 
go  into  collateral  evidences  of  the  character  of 
these  teachings,  we  should  find  our  interpreta- 
tion not  weakened,  but  confirmed. 

Nearly  all  the  amendments  of  the  Constitution, 
and,  indeed,  all  of  them,  which  concern  our 
present  argument,  were  taken  from  the  Bill  of 
j  Rights,  which  the  Virginia  Convention  proposed 
I  to  have  incorporated  with  the_ Federal .fjopfitii " - 
tion,  Kn*   


N'  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


13 


either  of  Congress,  nor  the  Federal  Government, 
:s  language  is  to  be  construed  as  no  less  appli- 
able  to  a  State  than  to  the  Nation,  as  providing 
ecurity  no  less  against  the  abuse  of  State  power 
han  Federal  power. 

Again :  in  the  Congress,  which  submitted  the 
.mendments,  Mr.  Madison  was  the  first  person 

0  move  in  the  matter.  He  proposed  two  scries 
tf  amendments,  one  of  them  affecting  Federal, 
ind  the  other  State  powers.  His  proposition 
>rovided  to  have  them  interwoven  in  the  origi- 
lal  Constitution.  For  instance,  the  negations 
>f  Federal  Power  were  to  be  included  in  the 
linth  section  of  the  first  article ;  and  the  nega- 
ions  of  State  power  in  the  tenth  section  of  that 
irticle.  And,  what  is  more,  several  of  the 
intendments,  which  he  proposed  to  include  in 
,his  tenth  section,  are.  not  only  in  substance,  but 
ilmost  precisely  in  letter,  identical  with  amend- 
ments, which  became  a  part  of  the  Constitution. 
It  was  in  the  following  words,  that  Mr.  Madison 
ustified  his  proposition  to  restrain  the  States  : 
'  I  think  there  is  more  danger  of  these  powers 

being  abused  by  the  State  Governments  than 
:  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States."  u  It 
:  must  be  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  the  State 
:  Governments  are  as  liable  to  attack  these  inval- 
'  unable  privileges,  as  the  General  Government  is. 

1  and  therefore  ought  to  be  as  cautiously  guarded 
1  against."  ';I  should,  therefore,  wish  to  extend 
'  this  interdiction,  and  add,  that  no  State  shall 
1  violate,"  &c.  If  there  was  any  reason  to  re- 
strain the  Government  of  the  United  States  from 
infringing  upon  these  essential  rights,  it  was 
equally  necessary  that  they  should  be  secured 
against  the  State  Governments.  He  thought, 
that  if  they  provided  against  the  one,  it  was  as 
necessary  to  provide  against  the  other,  and  was 
satisfied,  that  it  would  be  equally  grateful  to  the 
people. 

The  House  of  Representatives  did  not  adopt 
Mr.  Madison's  plan  of  distributing  the  amend- 
ments through  the  original  Constitution,  and 
thus  expressly  applying  one  to  the  Federal  and 
another  to  a  State  Government.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  made  them  a  supplement  to  the  original 
Constitution,  and  left  a  part  of  them  couched  in 
terms,  that  render  them  equally  applicable  either 
to  one  Government  or  the  other.  It  must  not  be 
forgotten,  that  Mr.  Madison's  plan  was  embodied 
in  the  report  of  a  committee,  and  was  kept  before 
the  House,  for  a  long  time.  Nor  must  it  be  for- 
gotten, that  whatever  may  have  been  said  by  this 
or  that  speaker,  in  respect  to  the  application  of 
this  or  that  amendment,  no  vote  was  taken  de- 
claring, that  all,  or,  indeed,  any  of  the  amend- 
ments apply  to  the  General  Government.  What, 
however,  is  still  more  memorable  is,  that  there 
was  a  vote  taken,  which  shows,  that  the  House 
did  not  mean  to  have  all  the  amendments  apply 
to  the  General  Government  only.  The  vote  was 
on  the  following  proposed  amendment :  "No  per- 
1  son  shall  be  subject,  in  case  of  impeachment,  to 
1  more  than  one  trial,  or  one  punishment  for  the 
1  same  offence,  nor  shall  be  compelled  to  be  a 
1  witness  against  himself,  nor  be  deprived  of  life, 
'  ilffiffrtYi  fir  property,  without  due  process  of 
^^^^^  -  .  •  w   nf  Massachusetts, 


moved  to  insert  after  "  same  offence"  the  words: 
"  by  any  law  of  the  United  States."  His  motion 
failed  :  and  its  failure  proved";  that  the_  House 
would  restrain  a  State,  as  well  as  the  Nation,  from 
such  oppression. 

As  the  Senate  sat  with  closed  doors,  we  know 
nothing  of  its  proceedings  in  respect  to  the 
amendments,  except  that  it  concurred  with  the 
House  in  recommending  them. 

1  will  say  no  more  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of 
the  amendments.  Is  it  claimed,  that  if  the  origi- 
nal Constitution  is  pro-slavery  and  the  amend- 
ments anti-slavery,  the  original  Constitution  shall 
prevail  against  the  amendments  ?  As  well  might 
it  be  claimed  to  reverse  the  rule  in  the  case  of  a 
will  and  to  have  its  repugnant  language  prevail 
against  the  codicil.  The  amendments  of  the  Con- 
stitution, are  the  codicils  of  the  Constitution ; 
and  if  anywhere  they  conflict  with  it,  the  Consti- 
tution must  yield. 

I  have,  now,  done,  not  only  with  the  amend- 
ments, but  with  the  entire  Constitution.  With- 
in the  compass  of  a  single  speech,  I  could,  of 
course,  comprise  but  an  outline  of  my  argument. 
I  commend  to  my  hearers  the  arguments  of  Wil- 
liam Goodell  and  Lysander  Spooner  on  this  sub- 
ject. It  must  be  very  difficult  for  an  intelligent 
person  to  rise  from  the  candid  reading  of  Mr. 
Spooner's  book,  entitled  "  The  Unconstitution- 
ality of  Slavery,"  without  being  convinced,  by  its 
unsurpassed  logic,  that  American  slavery  finds 
no  protection  in  the  Constitution. 

I  said,  that  I  have,  now,  done  with  the  Consti- 
tution. I  believe,  I  am  warranted  in  adding, 
that  I  have  reached  the  conclusion,  that  there  is 
power  in  the  Constitution  to  abolish  every  part 
of  American  slavery.  Is  it  said,  that  this  conclu- 
sion, notwithstanding  the  manifest  logical  neces- 
sity for  arriving  at  it,  is,  nevertheless,  not  sound  ? 
One  of  the  objections  to  its  soundness — viz  :  that 
the  slaveholders  could  never  have  consented  to 
adopt  a  Constitution  of  such  anti-slavery  pow- 
ers— I  have  already  replied  to,  by  saying,  that 
the  slaveholders  of  that  day,  being  against  the 
continuance  of  slavery,  and  the  slaveholders  of 
this  day  for  it,  the  former  cannot  be  judged  of  in 
the  light  of  the  character  of  the  latter.  To  this 
I  add,  that  whatever  were  the  slaveholders  of 
that  day,  and  whatever  were  their  motives  in 
adopting  an  anti-slavery  Constitution,  they, 
nevertheless,  did  adopt  it,  just  as  it  is — anti- 
slavery  as  it  is.  The  other  principal  objection  to 
the  soundness  of  my  conclusion  is,  that  neither 
slaveholders  nor  non-slaveholders  would  have 
consented  to  adopt  a  Constitution,  which  annihi- 
lates State  sovereignty.  My  answer  to  the  latter 
objection  is,  that  the  States  are  not  sovereign, 
and  were  not  intended  by  the  Constitution  to  be 
sovereign.  The  simple  truth  is,  that  our  fathers 
refused  to  repeat  the  experiment  of  a  Confede- 
racy of  States  ;  and  that,  instead  of  it,  they  de- 
vised for  themselves  and  their  posterity  a  Gov- 
ernment, which  is,  altogether,  too  broad  and 
binding  to  consist  with  State  sovereignty.  The 
Constitution  prescribes  limits  to  the  State  quite 
too  narrow  for  the  play  of  sovereignty.  It  de- 
nies the  State  many  specific  powers,  each  of 
which  is  vifel  to  sovereignty.    For  instance,  it 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  :  NO  SLAVERY 


restrains  it  from  entering  into  a  treaty ;  and  from 
coining  money  ;  and,  if  the  power  to  deprive 
"  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,"  is  vital  to  sove- 
reignty, then,  as  we  have  seen,  the  State  is  not 
sovereign,  because  it  has  not  this  power.  Our 
fathers  would  not  consent,  that  any  section  of 
their  fellow-men,  with  whom  they  had  come 
under  a  common  Government,  should  outrage 
essential  human  rights.  Our  fathers  would  not 
fraternize  with  the  people  of  Massachusetts, 
and  yet  allow  them  to  plunder  each  other  of 
property.  They  would  not  consent  to  be  one  peo- 
ple with  murderers,  and,  therefore,  they  would 
not  allow  room  tor  the  Pennsylvauians  to  turn 
Thugs.  And  slavery,  being  worse  than  murder, 
(for  what  intelligent  parent  would  not  rather 
have  his  children  dispatched  by  the  murderer, 
than  chained  by  the  slaveholder?) — slavery 
being,  indeed,  the  greatest  wrong  to  man,  of 
which  we  can  conceive — our  fathers  would  not 
come  under  the  same  Government  with  Vir- 
ginians, if  Virginians  were  to  be  allowed  to  en- 
slave and  buy  and  sell  men.  Does  the  Constitu- 
tion require  us  to  remain  bound  up  with  Penn- 
sylvania, even  though  her  policy  is  to  shoot  all 
her  adult  subjects,  whose  stature  falls  below  five 
feet  ?  Does  it  require  us  to  continue  in  the  same 
political  brotherhood  with  Virginia,  even  though 
she  shall  enslave  all  her  light-haired  subjects, 
(or,  what  is  the  same  in  principle,)  all  her' dark- 
skinned  subjects  ?  So  far  from  it,  there  is  power 
in  that  Constitution  to  hold  back  Pennsylvania 
and  Virginia  from  the  commission  of  these 
crimes. 

Every  person  remembers  one  part  of  the  tenth 
amendment  of  the  Constitution ;  and  every  per- 
son seems  to  have  forgotten  the  other.  Every 
day  do  we  hear,  that  powers  are  reserved  by  the 
Constitution  to  the  States  ;  but,  no  day,  do  we 
hear,  that  powers  are  ''prohibited  by  it  to  the 
States."  Now,  among  those  prohibited  powers,  is 
that  of  classing  men  with  horses  and  hogs. 

Let  it  not  be  implied  from  what  I  said,  a  minute 
ago,  that  I  would  admit  the  competence  of  a  State 
Government  to  enslave  its  subjects,  provided  the 
Federal  Constitution  had  not  curtailed  its  sov- 
ereignty. No  human  Government,  however  un- 
limited its  sovereignty,  has  authority  to  reduce 
man  to  a  chattel — to  transform  immortality  into 
merchandise.  And  cannot  I  add  with  truth,  and 
without  irreverence,  that  such  authority  comes 
not  within  the  limits  even  of  the  Divine  Govern- 
ment ? 

Nor  let  it  be  implied,  that  I  am  indifferent  to 
State  rights.  I  am  strenuous  for  their  mainte- 
nance :  and  I  would  go  to  the  extreme  verge  of  the 
Constitution  to  swell  their  number.  But  there  1 
stop.  The  province  of  the  State  shall  not,  with 
my  consent,  encroach  upon  the  province  of  the 
Nation;  nor  upon  ground  denied  to  both  by  the 
law  of  God  and  the  limits  of  civil  government. 

It  is,  sometimes,  said,  that  the  amendment, 
on  which  I  have  spoken  so  extensively,  refers  to 
criminal  prosecutions  only.  But  what  if  this 
were  so  ?  It  would,  nevertheless,  cover  the  case 
of  the  slave.  You,  surely,  would  not  have  a  man 
stripped  of  his  liberty,  ay,  and  of  his  manhood 
too,  who  is  not  charged  with  crime.    The  Gov- 


ernment, which  says,  that  it  Avill  make  him,  who  I 
is  not  a  criminal,  a  slave,  confesses  itself  to  be1 
unutterably  unjust  and  base. 

The  Constitution,  as  has  been  seen  in  the  course : 
of  my  argument,  forbids  slavery.  Its  pro-slavery 
character  has  been  assumed.  What  is  there,  in- 
deed, that  will  make  for  itself,  that  slavery  does 
not  assume  ?  No  wonder  !  It  is  itself  but  a 
mere  assumption  —  and  the  most  monstrous  as- 
sumption. The  only  wonder  is — and  the  sorrow- 
is  as  great  as  the  wonder — that  the  American 
people  should  be  in  the  miserable,  servile  habit 
of  yielding  to  all  these  bare-faced  assumptions  of 
slavery.  The  speakers  on  both  sides  of  this  bill 
have  taken  it  for  granted,  that  the  Constitution 
is  pro-slavery: — and  when  the  honorable  gentle- 
man of  North  Carolina  [Mr.  Clingmax]  coolly 
said  :  "  Every  single  provision  in  that  instrument, 
1  (the  Constitution,)  is  pro-slavery — that  is,  for 
'  the  protection  and  defence  and  increase  of  sla- 
'  very,"  no  one  seemed  to  doubt  the  truth  of 
what  he  was  saying,  any  more  than  if  he  had 
been  reading  Christ's  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
And,  yet,  the  instrument,  of  which  the  honorable 
gentleman  affirmed  all  this,  refused  to  pollute 
its  pages  with  the  word  ';  slavery,"  or  even 
with  a  word,  (servitude,)  which  might,  possibly, 
be  construed  into  slavery  !  Moreover,  the  instru- 
ment avows,  that  "to  secure  the  blessings  of  lib- 
erty," is  among  its  objects.  Though  adminis- 
tered to  uphold  the  curse  of  slavery,  the  Consti- 
tution was,  nevertheless,  made  "  to  secure  the 
blessings  of  liberty."  Hence,  the  declaration,  in 
the  former  part  of  my  Speech,  that  therk  is  no 
law  for  American  slavery,  is  true.  But  I  must 
not  stop  here.  It  would  be  disingenuous  to  do 
so.  My  stopping  here  would  imply,  that,  if  I 
found  slavery  in  the  Constitution,  I  would  admit 
its  legality.  But  I  would  not — just  as  I  would 
not  admit  the  legality  of  murder,  even  though  it 
were  embodied  in  all  the  organic  laws  of  all  the 
nations.  I  proceed,  therefore,  to  declare,  and  to 
argue  the  justice  of  the  declaration,  that 

There  not  only  is  no  law  for  American  sla- 
very, BUT  THAT  THERE  CAN  BE  NO  LAW  EITHER  FOR 

American,  or  any  other,  slavery. 

1st.  Law  is,  simply,  the  rule  or  demand  of 
natural  justice.  Justice  is  its  very  soul :  and  it 
is,  therefore,  never  to  be  identified  with  naked 
and  confessed  injustice.  Law  is  for  the  protec- 
tion— not  for  the  destruction — of  rights.  Well 
does  the  Declaration  of  Independence  say,  that 
"  to  secure  these  rights,  Governments  are  insti- 
tuted among  men."  They  are  instituted,  not  to 
destroy,  but  to  secure,  these  rights.  It  is  perti- 
tent  to  the  case  in  hand,  to  see  what  are  "  these 
rights,"  which  the  Declaration  specifies  :  They 
are  "  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 
These  it  declares  to  be  "  inalienable."  These  are 
not  conventional  rights,  which,  in  its  wisdom, 
Government  may  give,  or  take  away,  at  pleasure. 
But  these  are  natural,  inherent,  essential  rights, 
which  Government  has  nothing  to  do  with,  but 
to  protect.  I  am  not  saying,  that  men  cannot 
forfeit  these  rights.  But  I  do  say,  that  they  can 
lose  them,  only  by  forfeiting  them.  I  admit,  that 
a  man  may  forfeit  liberty  by  his  crimes;  and 
that  it  will  be  thp  "  C'  Z 


N  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


15 


rent  his  re-enjoyment  of  it.  I  remark,  incident-  ] 
illy,  that,  though  a  man  may  forfeit  liberty,  this  ! 
s  quite  another  thing  from  his  deserving  sla- 
very. Slavery  unmans  :  and  the  worst  man,  no 
nore  than  the  best  man,  deserves  to  be  unman-  I 
led.  But  to  return  from  this  digression  to  my  : 
leclaration,  that  law  is  for  the  protection  of 
•ights — I  proceed  to  say,  that  slavery  annihilates 
ill  the  rights  of  its  victim.  For,  in  striking  down 
;he  right  of  self-ownership,  it  strikes  down  that 
*reat  centre-right,  to  which  all  other  rights  are 
:ied  ;  by  which  all  other  rights  are  sustained  ; 
ind,  in  the  fall  of  which,  all  other  rights  fall. 
Murder  itself  cannot  be  a  more  sweeping  de- 
stroyer of  rights  than  is  slavery — for  murder 
.tself  is  but  one  of  the  elements  in  the  infernal 
jompound  of  slavery. 

Slavery  being  such,  as  I  have  described  it, 
:here,  of  necessity,  can  be  no  law  for  it.  To  give 
io  it  one  of  the  mildest  of  its  proper  and  charac- 
teristic names,  it  is  a  conspiracy — a  conspiracy 
Df  the  strong  against  the  Aveak.  Now,  all  are 
jaware,  that  there  is  law  to  put  down  a  conspir- 
acy— but  who  ever  heard  of  law  to  uphold  a  con- 
spiracy ?  Said  William  Pitt,  when  speaking  in 
the  British  Parliament,  of  the  African  slave- 
trade  :  "  Any  contract  for  the  promotion  of  this 
'  trade  must,  in  his  opinion,  have  been  void  from 
4  the  beginning,  being  an  outrage  upon  justice, 
|f  and  only  another  name  for  fraud,  roberry,  and 
1  murder."  But  the  slave-trade  is  all  one  with 
slavery:  —  nothing  more  and  nothing  less  than 
slavery.  Said  Granville  Sharp,  when  speaking 
of  slavery  and  the  slave-trade  :  H  No  authority 
4  on  earth  can  ever  render  such  enormous  iniqui- 
4  ties  legal."  Says  Henry  Brougham  :  (i  Tell  me 
4  not  of  rights  ;  talk  not  of  the  property  of  the 
4  planter  in  his  slaves.  I  deny  the  right.  I 
4  acknowledge  not  the  property.  The  principles, 
4  the  feelings,  of  our  common  nature,  rise  in  re- 
4  bellion  against  it.  Be  the  appeal  made  to  the 
4  understanding,  or  the  heart,  the  sentence  is  the 
4  same,  that  rejects  it.  In  vain,  you  tell  me  of 
4  laws,  that  sanction  such  a  crime  !  There  is  a 
4  law  above  all  the  enactments  of  human  codes — 
4  the  same  throughout  the  world — the  same  in 
4  all  times  —  such  as  it  was  before  the  daring 
4  genius  of  Columbus  pierced  the  night  of  ages, 
4  and  opened  to  one  world  the  sources  of  power, 
4  wealth,  and  knowledge  ;  to  another,  all  unut- 
4  terable  woes,  such  as  it  is  at  this  day.  It  is  the 
4  law  written  by  the  finger  of  God  on  the  heart 
4  of  man,  and  by  that  law,  unchangeable  and 
4  eternal,  while  men  despise  fraud,  and  loathe 
4  rapine,  and  abhor  blood,  they  will  reject  with 
4  indignation  the  wild  and  guilty  fantasy,  that 
4  man  can  hold  property  in  man ! " 

To  hold  that  slavery,  which  is  the  crime  of 
crimes  and  abomination  of  abominations,  is  capa- 
ble of  legalization,  is,  a  pre-eminent  confounding 
of  injustice  with  justice,  and  anti-law  with  law. 
Knowingly  to  admit  into  the  theory  and  definition 
of  law  even  a  single  element  of  wrong,  is  virtually 
to  say,  that  there  is  no  law.  It  is  virtually  to  say, 
that  earth  is  without  rule,  and  heaven  is  without 
rule ;  and  that  the  light,  order,  and  harmony  of 
the  Universe  may  give  place  to  darkness,  disorder, 
__       ""       ~  *  ie  °"oh  is  the  effect  of  alloying 


law  with  only  one  wrong,  how  emphatically  must 
it  be  the  effect  of  regarding  as  law  that,  which  is 
nothing  but  wrong ! 

1  am  advancing  no  new  doctrine,  when  I  say, 
that  essential  wrongs  cannot  be  legalized.  This 
was  the  doctrine,  until  supplanted  by  the  absurd 
and  atheistic  maxim,  that  "  Parliament  is  omnip- 
otent.'' Even  Blackstone,  with  all  his  cowardice 
in  the  presence  of  that  maxim,  repeatedly  con- 
fesses, that  human  legislation  is  void,  if  it  con- 
flicts with  Divine  legislation.  And  if  we  go  back 
to  the  times  of  Lord  Coke,  we  find  him  quoting 
numy  cases,  in  which  it  was  held,  that  the  com- 
mon law,  or,  in  other  words,  common  sense,  or 
common  justice,  can  nullify  an  act  of  Parliament. 
He  says  :  44  It  appeareth  in  our  books,  that  in 
4  many  cases  the  common  law  shall  control  acts 
4  of  Parliament,  and  sometimes  shall  adjudge 
4  them  to  be  utterly  void  :  for  when  an  Act  of 
'  Parliament  is  against  common  right  and  reason, 
'  or  repugnant,  or  impossible  to  be  performed,  the 
4  common  law  shall  control  this,  and  adjudge 
'  such  act  to  be  void." — [Dr.  JJonham's  Case  in 
Life  of  Lord  Bacon.'] 

I  would  add,  in  this  connexion,  that  the  prov- 
ince of  a  human  legislature  does  not  extend  even 
to  all  lawful  and  innocent  things.  That  it  is  com- 
mensurate with  the  whole  field  of  human  inter- 
ests and  obligations,  is  a  very  great,  though  a 
very  common  mistake.  It  covers  but  a  small 
portiou  of  that  field.  Not  only  are  crimes  inca- 
pable of  being  legalized,  but  there  are  number- 
less relations  and  duties,  which  are  ever  to  be 
held  sacred  from  the  invasion  and  control  of  the 
human  legislature.  For  instance,  what  we  shall 
eat  and  wear  is  a  subject  foreign  to  human  legis- 
lation. What  shall  be  the  character  of  the  in- 
tercourse between  parent  and  child  is  no  less  so. 
But  if  there  is  a  natural,  lawful,  and  innocent  re- 
lation, for  which  the  human  legislature  may  not 
prescribe,  how  much  less  is  it  authorized  to  cre- 
ate the  unnatural,  monstrous,  and  supremely 
guilty  relations  of  slavery  !  , 

2d.  Law  is  not  an  absurdity,  but  is  one  with 
reason.  Hence,  in  point  of  fact,  a  legislature 
cannot  make  law.  It  can  declare  what  is  law. 
It  can  legislate  in  behalf  of  that  only,  which  is 
already  law.  Legislation  for  liberty  may  be 
law,  because  liberty  itself  is  law.  But  legis- 
lation for  slavery  cannot  possibly  be  law,  be- 
cause slavery  is  not  law.  That  cannot  be  law, 
the  subject  matter  of  which  is  not  law.  The 
great  fundamental  and  controlling  law  in  the 
case  of  a  man  is,  that  he  is  a  man.  The  great 
fundamental  and  controlling  law  in  the  case  of  a 
horse  is,  that  he  is  a  horse.  The  great  funda- 
mental and  controlling  law  in  the  case  of  a  stone 
is,  that  it  is  a  stone.  All  legislation,  therefore, 
which  proceeds  on  the  assumption,  that  a  stone 
is  wood,  is  absurd  and  void.  So,  too,  all  legis- 
lation, that  proceeds  on  the  assumption,  that  a 
horse  is  a  hog,  is  absurd  and  void.  And,  so  too, 
and  far  more  emphatically,  all  legislation,  which 
proceeds  on  the  assumption,  that  a  man  is  a 
thing — an  immortal  God-like  being  a  commodi- 
ty— is  absurd  and  void.  But  such  is  the  legisla- 
tion in  behalf  of  slavery.  The  statutes  of  our 
Slave  States,  which,  with  infinite  blasphemy,  as 


16 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  :  NO  SLAVER! 


well  as  with  infinite  cruelty,  authorize  the  enslav- 
ing of  men,  say,  that  the  slave  shall  be  deemed, 
'  held,  taken,  to  be  a  chattel  to  all  intents,  eon- 
'  structions,  and  purposes  whatsoever  :■'  that c<  the 
1  slave  is  entirely  subject  to  the  will  of  his  mas- 
'  terr"  and  that  "he  can  possess  nothing,  but 
'  what  must  belong  to  his  master.1' 

We  are  amazed  at  the  madness  of  the  Roman 
ruler,  who  claimed  for  his  favorite  horse  the  re- 
spect, which  is  clue  to  the  dignity  of  manhood. 
But  the  madness  of  the  American  ruler,  who  sinks 
the  man  into  the  horse,  is  certainly  no  less  than 
that  of  the  Roman  ruler,  who  exalted  the  horse 
into  the  man. 

There  can  be  no  law  against  the  law  of  nature. 
But  a  law  to  repeal  the  law  of  gravitation  would 
be  no  greater  absurdity  than  a  law  to  repeal  any 
part  of  the  everlasting  moral  code.  The  distinc- 
tion of  higher  and  lower  law  is  utterly  untenable, 
and  of  most  pernicious  influence.  There  is  but 
I  one  law  for  time  and  eternity — but  one  law  for 
earth  and  heaven. 

I  must  not,  then,  know,  as  law,  or,  in  other 
words,  as  wisdom  and  reason — but  I  must  reject, 
as  anti-law,  and  nonsense,  and  madness — that, 
which  calls  on  me  to  regard  a  stone  as  a  stump, 
a  horse  as  a  hog,  a  man  as  a  thing.  I  must  not 
undertake  to  conform  myself  to  such  ideal  and 
impossible  transformations.  But  I  must  accord 
to  every  being,  animate  or  inanimate,  the  nature 
given  to  it  by  its  Great  Maker.  I  must  deny,  that 
the  being  made  in  the  image  of  God  can,  any 
more  than  God  Himself,  be  turned  into  a  slave 
I  must  deny,  that  it  is  possible  for  human  enact- 
ments to  transmute  men  into  chattels,  and  to  an- 
nihilate the  essential  and  everlasting  distinction 
between  immortality  and  property.  I  must  deny, 
that  there  is  truth  in  Henry  Clay  s  famous  decla- 
ration, that  "that  is  property,  which  the  law 
(meaning  human  legislation)  makes  property." 
I  must  deny,  that  slavery  can  an)'  more  furnish 
the  elements  of  law,  than  darkness  can  be 
changed  unto  light,  or  Hell  into  Heaven.  I  must 
deny,  that  the  fact  of  a  slave  is  philosophically 
and  really,  a  possible  fact.  I  must  deny,  that 
man  can  lose  his  nature,  either  in  time  or  eterni- 
ty. Let  slavery  and  slave-legislation  do  their 
worst  upon  him ;  let  them  do  their  utmost  to  un- 
man him  ;  he  is  still  a  man.  Nor,  is  it  whilst  he 
is  in  the  flesh  only,  that  his  manhood  is  inde- 
structible. It  is  no  less  so,  after  he  has  "  shuffled 
off  this  mortal  coil.''  When  "  the  heavens  shall 
pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and  the  elements 
shall  melt  with  fervent  heat;  the  earth  also,  and 
the  works,  that  are  therein,"  and  all  that  is,  or 
can  be,  property,  "  shall  be  burnt  up,"  the  death- 
less spirit  of  man,  unchanged  and  unchangeable, 
may  stand  upon  the  ashes  and  exclaim :  '*  I  am 
still  a  man — I  have  lost  nothing  of  my  manhood." 

I  have  in  other  parts,  as  well  as  in  this  part 
of  my  speech,  carried  the  idea,  that  slavery,  in  its 
theory,  is  the  conversion  of  men  into  things.  It 
was  right  for  me  to  do  so.  Such  conversion  is 
the  sole  essence  of  slavery.  This,  and  this  alone, 
distinguishes  it  from  every  other  servitude.  In 
point  of  fact,  slavery  is  not  necessarily,  and, 
indeed,  is  not  at  all,  by  any  just  definition  of  the 
word,  servitude.    Let  the  life  of  the  slave  be  all  j 


idleness;  and  let  him  be  "clothed  in  purple  anc 
line  linen,  and  fare  sumptuously  every  day;  "  and 
he  is  still  as  absolutely  a  slave,  as  if  he  were  in 
the  hardest  lot  of  a  slave.  Whatever  his  privi- 
leges, if  he  have  no  rights — however  indulgent 
his  treatment,  if  he  is  owned  by  another,  instead 
of  himself — he  is  still  a  slave,  and  but  a  slave.  I 
wish  it  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  I  arraign  sla- 
very, not  because  it  withholds  wages,  and  mar- 
riage, and  parental  control  of  children,  and  the 
Bible  and  Heaven,  from  its  victims.  I  do  not 
arraign  it  for  denying  these,  or  any  other  rights, 
to  a  mere  chattel.  Such  denial  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent. A  chattel  is  entitled  to  no  rights — can 
have  no  rights.  What  I  arraign  slavery  for,  is 
for  its  making  a  man  a  chattel.  I  do  not 
arraign  slavery  for  the  terrible  enactments, 
which,  for  its  security,  it  puts  into  the  statute- 
book;  nor  for  the  terrible  advertisements  which 
it  puts  into  the  newspapers.  These  enactments 
are  the  natural  and  necessary  outgrowth  of 
the  blasphemous  assumption,  that,  man,  with 
all  his  great  attributes  and  destiny,  is  capa- 
ble of  being  reduced  to  a  thing.  These  adver- 
tisements, some  of  which  are  otters  of  large  boun- 
ties for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves,  or  for  the 
production  of  their  dissevered  heads ;  some  of 
which  contain  revolting  descriptions  of  their  sla- 
very-scarred and  mangled  persons ;  and  some  of 
which  contain  oilers  of  trained  bloodhounds  to 
hunt  them — these  advertisements  are,  in  no  wise, 
to  be  wondered  at.  Slavery  itself — not  its  fruits 
and  incidents — is  the  wonder.  That  man  should 
be  found  so  perverted  and  depraved,  as  to  sink 
his  equal  brother  into  slavery — it  is  this,  and 
nothing  incidental  to  it,  or  resulting  from  it,  that 
should  fill  us  with  astonishment.  In  reducing  a 
man  to  a  thing,  we  have  not  only  committed  the 
highest  crime  against  him.  but  we  have  commit- 
ted all  crimes  against  him  ;  for  we  have  thrown 
open  the  door — the  door  never  again  to  be  shut — 
to  the  commission  of  all  crimes  against  him. 

Perhaps,  such  language,  as  J  have  just  been 
using,  will  occasion  the  remark,  that  I  am  preju- 
diced against  the  South.  But  1  know,  that  I  am 
not.  I  love  the  South  equally  well  with  the 
North.  My  heart  goes  out  as  strongly  to  South- 
ern, as  to  Northern  men,  on  this  floor.  Far  am  I 
from  attributing  to  Southern  men  a  peculiarly 
severe  nature.  I  had  rather  attribute  to  them  a 
peculiarly  generous  nature.  I  believe,  that  there 
is  not  another  people  on  the  earth,  in  whose 
hands  the  system  of  slavery  would  work  more 
kindly — with  less  of  cruelty  and  horror.  No- 
where can  it  work  well — for  there  is  nothing  in  it 
to  work  well.  Nowhere  can  it  be  unattended 
with  the  most  frightful  and  deplorable  abuses — 
for  it  is  itself  the  most  stupendous  abuse. 

3d.  My  argument,  in  the  third  and  last  place, 
to  prove,  that  there  can  be  no  law,  either  for 
American,  or  any  other  slavery,  is  that,  that  is 
not  law,  and  is  never,  never,  to  be  acknowledged 
as  law,  which  men  cannot  regard  as  law,  and 
use  as  law,  without  being  dishonest.  Both  heaven 
and  earth  forbid  that,  which  cannot  be,  but  at 
the  expense  of  integrity.  Now,  in  the  conscience 
of  universal  man,  slavery  cannot  be  law — cannot 
be  invested  with  the  (dV 


IN  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


17 


law.  Hence,  to  regard  it  a3  law,  and  use  it  as 
law,  is  to  be  dishonest.  There  may  be  little, 
or  no,  consciousness  of  the  dishonesty.  Never- 
theless, the  dishonesty  is  there.  I  said,  that  the 
consciousness,  that  slavery  cannot  be  legalized, 
is  universal.  Let  me  not  be  misunderstood  in 
what  I  said.  I  did  not  mean,  that  there  are  none, 
who  believe,  that  the  slavery  of  others  can  be 
legalized.  I  admit,  that  thousands  believe  it. 
At  the  same  time,  however,  I  affirm,  that  not  one 
of  them  all  would  believe  slavery  to  be  a  thing 
of  law,  and  entitled  to  the  respect  of  law,  were 
it  brought  to  war  against  himself.  The  presence 
of  an  enactment  for  slavery  would  iuspire  with 
no  sense  of  the  sacred  obligations  of  law — with 
no  sense  of  the  honor  and  obedience  due  to  law — 
him,  who  should  be  claimed  under  it.  Now,  how 
such  a  person  is  to  be  regarded — whether  as 
believing  the  laws  for  slavery  to  be  valid  or  void, 
real  and  true  laws,  or  nominal  and  no  laws — is  to 
be  decided,  not  according  to  his  view  of  them, 
when  applied  to  others,  but  according  to  his 
sense  of  them,  when  brought  home  to  himself. 
Self-application  is  the  testing  crucible  in  all  such 
case?. 

If  an  American  gentleman  is  so  unfortunate,  as 
to  be  brought  under  the  yoke  of  slavery  in  one 
of  the  Barbary  States ;  and  if,  notwithstanding, 
the  slavery  is  decreed  by  the  supreme  power  of 
tho  State,  he  breaks  away  from  it,  and  thus  pours 
contempt  upon  the  decree  and  the  source  of  it ; 
then,  obviously,  on  his  return  to  America,  he  can- 
not acknowledge  slavery  to  be  law,  and  yet  be 
honest.  If  it  is  true,  that  what  is  law  we  are  no 
more  at  liberty  to  break  in  a  foreign  country  than 
In  our  own  country,  so  also  is  it  true,  that  what 
is  too  abominable  and  wicked  to  be  law  in  one 
part  of  the  world  is  too  abominable  and  wicked 
to  be  law  in  any  other  part  of  the  world.  Should 
this  gentleman  be  elected  to  Congress,  he  will  be 
dishonest,  if  he  legislates  for  slavery.  Should  he 
take  his  seat  upon  the  bench,  he  will  be  dishon- 
est, if  he  administers  a  statute  for  slavery.  And 
no  less  dishonest  will  he  be,  if,  as  a  juror,  or  mar- 
shal, or  as  President  of  the  United  States,  he 
6ha!l  contribute  to  the  enforcement  of  such  stat- 
ute. But  every  American  gentleman  would,  like 
this  one,  break  away  from  slavery  if  he  could: 
and,  hence,  every  American  gentleman,  who 
recognises  slavery  as  law,  does  therein  stigmatize 
and  condemn  himself.  Possibly,  however,  there 
may  be  some  American  gentleman,  who  is  in- 
spired with  such  a  sense  of  the  fitness  and  beauty 
of  slavery,  as  to  welcome  its  chains  about  his 
own  person.  If  there  is  such  a  one,  "  let  him 
speak — for  him  have  I  offended." 

That  no  one  can  honestly  recognize  a  law  for 
slavery,  is  on  the  same  principle,  that  no  one 
can  honestly  recognize  a  law  for  murder.  But 
there  are  innumerable  things,  which  all  men  hold 
cannot  be  legalized.  I  venture  the  remark,  that, 
Among  all  the  Judges  of  this  land,  who,  ever  and 
anon,  are  dooming  their  fellow-men  to  the  pit  of 
slavery,  there  is  not  one,  who  could  be  honest  in 
administering  even  a  sumptuary  law — for  there  is 
not  one  of  them,  who,  in  his  own  person,  would 
obey  such  a  law.  How  gross  is  their  hypocrisy ! 
They  affect  to  believe,  that  Government  has  power 


to  legalize  slavery — to  turn  men  into  things : — and 
yet  deny,  that  Government  may  go  so  far,  as  to 
prescribe  what  men  shall  wear  !  Government 
may  do  what  it  will  with  the  bodies  and  souls  of 
men  : — but  to  meddle  with  their  clothes — oh,  that 
is  unendurable  usurpation  ! ! ! 

If,  then,  I  am  right  in  saying,  that  men  cannot 
honestly  recognize  legislation  for  slavery,  as  law : 
cannot  do  so.  without  palpably  violating  that  great 
law  of  honesty,  which  requires  us  to  do  unto 
others,  as  we  would  have  others  do  unto  us:  if, 
then,  I  am  right  in  declaring,  that,  in  strict  truth, 
there  is  not,  in  all  the  broad  earth,  one  pro-sla- 
very man:  but  that  every  man,  when  called  to 
make  his  bed  in  the  hell  of  slavery,  betrays,  in  the 
agonies  of  his  soul  and  the  quoking  of  his  limbs, 
the  fact,  that  he  is  a  thorough  abolitionist : — if,  I 
say.  I  am  right  in  all  this,  then  does  it  irresistibly 
follow,  that  I  am  also  right,  in  my  position,  that 

THERE  CAN  BE  NO  LAW,  EITHER  FOR  AMERICAN,  0E 

any  other  slavkry.  I  am  right  in  this  position, 
because,  that,  by  no  reasonable  theory,  or  defini- 
tion, of  law,  can  that  be  called  law,  which  i3 
incapable  of  being  administered  honestly.  The 
fact,  that  men  must  necessarily  be  dishonest  in- 
carrying  it  out,  is,  of  itself,  the  most  conclusive 
and  triumphant  argument,  that  it  is  not  law.  To 
take  the  opposite  ground,  and  to  claim,  that  to  be 
law,  which  every  man,  when  properly  tested,  de- 
nies is  law,  is  to  insult  all  true  law,  and  Him,  who 
is  the  source  of  all  true  law.  I  conclude,  under 
this  head,  with  the  remark,  that,  the  question, 
whether  slavery  is,  or  is  not  to  be  known  as  law, 
resolves  itself  into  a  question  of  simple  honesty. 

I  must  say  a  few  words  to  protect  what  I  have 
said  from  the  misapprehension,  that  I  couusel 
trampling  on  all  wrong  legislation.  I  am  very 
far  from  giving  such  counsel.  No  wrong  legisla- 
tion, that  is  at  all  endurable,  would  I  resist.  And, 
I  add,  that  I  would  be  patient  with  almost  every 
degree  of  wrong  legislation,  provided  it  is  legisla- 
tion in  behalf  of  what  is  lawful,  and  of  what  it  is 
competent  to  legislate  upon.  Imprisonment  for 
debt  is  wrong  legislation — very  wrong  and  very 
cruel  legislation.  But,  inasmuch  as  the  relation 
of  debtor  and  creditor  comes  within  the  cogni- 
zance of  the  legislature,  I  will  not  treat  such  legis- 
lation as  void.  The  legislature  has  a  right  end 
in  view.  It  is  to  help  the  creditor  get  justice. 
Its  error  consists  in  selecting  wrong  means  to  this 
end;  and  in  putting  a  wrong  remedy  into  the 
hands  of  the  creditor.  I  am  to  treat  this  action 
of  the  legislature  as  a  mistake — and  a  mistake, 
which  I  am  not  to  go  beyond  the  limits  of  per- 
suasion to  seek  to  correct.  The  paying  c  f  one's 
debts  is  justice — is  law.  Enactments  to  enforce 
this  justice  and  this  law  may,  some  of  them,  be 
improper  —  such  as  compelling  payment  by  the 
terrors  of  imprisonment.  But,  as  they  are  enact- 
ments to  enforce  justice  and  what  is  itself  law, 
I  must  be  very  slow  to  denounce  them,  as  no 
law.  So,  too,  if  my  Government  declare  war 
against  a  nation — I  am  not  to  treat  the  Govern- 
ment, nor  the  declaration,  however  unjust  it  may 
be,  with  contempt.  I  must  remember,  that  Gov- 
ernment has  jurisdiction  of  national  controver- 
sies, and  that  the  redress  of  national  wrongs  is 
justice — is  law.  Government  may  err  in  its  modes 


18 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  ;  NO  SLAVERY 


of  redress.  It  may  resort  to  the  sword,  when 
it  should  confine  itself  to  the  exertion  of  moral 
influence.  The  cause,  nevertheless,  which  it  is 
prosecuting,  may  he  one  of  unmingled  justice. 
Like  every  good  cause,  it  may  itself  be  law;  and, 
therefore.  Government  would  not  be  chargeable 
with  impertinence  and  usurpation  for  taking  it  in 
hand.  But,  how  different  from  all  this  is  it,  when 
Government  sets  up  slavery!  In  that  case,  the 
subject  matter  of  its  action  is,  most  emphatically, 
not  law.  In  that  case^  most  '-mphatically,  it  has 
gone  beyond  its  province.  To  Government  be- 
longs the  adjustment  of  the  relations  between 
creditor  and  debtor;  and  it  is  for  Government  to 
dispose  of  national  controversies.  But,  when 
Government  undertakes  the  crime  and  absurdity 
of  turning  men  into  things — of  chattellizing,  in- 
stead of  protecting,  a  portion  of  its  subjects — it 
is,  then,  as  far  out  of  its  place,  as  it  can  be.  To 
such  an  outrage,  no  submission  i3  due.  It  is  to 
be  resisted,  at  every  hazard.  To  trample  upon 
such  lawlessness  is  to  be  law-abiding,  instead  of 
law-breaking.  To  rebel  against  such  a  Govern- 
ment is  not  to  be  revolutionary  and  mobocratic. 
The  Government  itself  is  the  revolutionary  and 
mobocratic  party  If  the  decree  should  go  forth 
from  our  Government,  that  our  Irish  population 
be  murdered,  the  decree  would,  of  course,  be 
trodden  under  foot.  But  who  denies,  that  it 
should  he  as  promptly  and  indignantly  trodden 
under  foot,  were  it  a  decree  for  their  enslavement? 

My  argument  to  show,  that  there  not  only  is 
ko  law  for  American  slavery,  but  that  there 

CAN  RE  NO  LAW,  EITHER  FOR  AMERICAN,  OR  ANY 
OTHER  SLAVERY,  IS  ENDED.     It  is  ill  place,  llOW- 

ever,  to  say,  that  the  recognition  by  the  Ameri- 
can people  of  slavery  as  law,  is,  of  itself,  sufficient 
to  account  for  their  loss  of  reverence  for  law. 
This  reverence  is,  necessarily,  destroyed  by  the 
habit  of  confounding  sham  law  with  true  law — 
by  the  habit,  of  accepting,  as  law,  the  mere  forms 
of  law,  where  justice,  truth,  reason,  and  every 
element,  which  goes  to  make  up  the  soul  of  law. 
is  lacking.  This  reverence  must  soon  die  out  of 
the  heart  of  the  people,  who  treat,  a*  law,  that, 
which  they  know,  is  not  law ;  who,  in  the  holy 
and  commanding  name  of  law,  buy  and  sell,  or 
sanction  the  buying  and  selling,  of  their  fellow- 
men  ;  and  who,  in  all  their  life,  live  out  the 
debasing  lie,  that^  so  monstrous  and  diabolical  a 
tiling,  as  slavery,,  is  entitled  to  the  shelter  and 
honor  of  law.  This  reverenco  is  little  felt  by 
those,  who  yield  to  the  absurdity,  that  law  and 
nature  are  opposite  to  each  other;  and  that, 
whilst,  hy  nature,  a  man  is  an  immortal,  by  law 
he  may  be  but  a  thing.  It  is  little  felt  by  those, 
who  regard  law  as  a  mere  conventionalism,  which 
may  be  one  thing  in  one  place,  and  another  in 
another ;  one  thing  at  one  period,  and  another  at 
another.  They,  and  they  only,  have  adequate 
and  adoring  conceptions  of  law,  who  believe,  that 
it  is  one  with  nature,  and  that  it  is  the  same  in 
every  part  of  the  earth,  in  every  period  of  time, 
and  u  eternal  in  the  heavens."  They,  and  they 
only,  have  such  conceptions,  who,  instead  of  re- 
garding law  as  synonymous  with  all  the  enact- 
ments of  foolish  and  wicked  men,  identify  it  with 
unchangeable  and  everlasting  right. 


How,  for  instance,  can  the  American  people 
perceive  the  beauty  and  preciousness  of  law, 
whilst  recognizing,  as  law,  the  fugitive  slave 
act  ? — and  whilst  stigmatizing,  and  persecuting 
the  handful  of  men,  who  have  the  integrity  and 
the  bravery  to  resist  it?  Why  should  not  that 
handful  fly  as  swift  to  the  rescue  of  their  brother, 
who  is  in  peril  of  being  reduced  to  slavery,  as  to 
the  rescue  of  their  brother,  who  cries:  -  .Murder?8 
Ten  thousand  enactments  for  murder  would  not 
hinder  them  in  the  latter  case.  Ten  thousand 
enactments  for  slavery  should  not  hinder  them, 
in  the  former.  In  each  case,  the  rescue  would 
be  not  by  a  mob  ;  but  from  a  mob. 

It  has,  now,  been  shown,  that  the  American 
Government  has  authority,  both  inside  and  out- 
side of  the  Constitution — as  well  in  natural  and 
universal  law,  as  in  conventional  and  national 
law — to  sweep  away  the  whole  of  American  sla- 
very. Will  it  avail  itself  of  this  authority  to  do 
this  work  ?  I  ask  not  whether  Government  will 
show  pity  to  the  slave — for  I  look  not  to  Gov- 
ernment to  be  pitiful  to  the  slave,  or  to  any 
other  man.  I  look  to  Government  for  sterner 
qualities  than  pity.  My  idea  of  a  true  Govern- 
ment is  realized,  only  in  proportion,  as  the  Gov- 
ernment is  characterized  by  wisdom,  integrity, 
strength.  To  hold  even  the  scales  of  justice 
among  all  its  subjects,  and  between  them  and  all' 
other  men  ;  and  to  strike  down  the  hand,  that 
would  make  them  uneven — this,  and  this  only, 
is  the  appropriate  work  of  Government. 

I  asked,  whether  the  American  Government 
will  abolish  slavery.  I  confess,  that  my  hope, 
that  it  will,  is  not  strong.  The  slave-owners 
have  the  control  of  this  nation,  and  I  fear,  that 
they  will  keep  it.  It  is  true,  that  they  are  a 
comparative  handful  iu  the  vast  American  popu- 
lation ;  and  that,  numbering  only  three  hundred 
thousand,  their  calling  themselves  "  the  South  " 
Is  an  affectation  as  absurd  and  ridiculous,  as  it 
would  be  for  the  manufacturers  of  the  North  to 
call  themselves  "the  North,"  or  the  rumsellers  of 
the  North  to  call  themselves  "  the  North.*'  It  ia 
true,  that  their  interests  are  alien,  as  well  from 
the  interests  of  the  South,  a3  from  the  interests  of 
the  North  ;  and  that  slavery  is  the  deadly  foe,  as 
well  of  the  white  population  of  the  South,  as  of 
its  black  population.  Nevertheless,  in  the  present 
corrupt  state  of  the  public  sentiment,  the  slave- 
owners are  able  to  control  the  nation.  They  are 
mighty  by  their  oneness.  Divided  they  may  be 
in  everything  else — but  they  are  undivided  in 
their  support  of  slavery.  The  State  and  the 
Church  are  both  in  their  hands.  A  bastard 
democracy,  accommodated  to  the  demands  of 
slavery,  and  tolerating  the  traffic  in  human  flesh, 
is  our  uational  democracy :  and  a  bastard  Chris- 
tianity, which  endorses  this  bastard  democracy, 
is  the  current  Christianity  of  our  nation.  The 
fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man — 
ideas,  so  prominent  in  a  true  democracy  and  a 
true  Christianity — are  quite  foreign  to  our  sham 
democracy  and  our  sham  Christianity.  American 
religion  is  a  huge  hypocrisy.  Whilst  to  the  im- 
measurable sinfulness  of  that  system,  which  for- 
bids marriage,  and  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  and 
which  markets  men  as  beasts,  it  is  blind  as  a  bat, 


IN  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


19 


ft,  nevertheless,  draws  down  it3  stupid  face,  and 
pronounces  the  shuffling  of  the  feet  to  music  to 
be  a  great  sin.  The  different  States  of  Christen- 
dom, as  they  advance  in  civilization  and  the 
knowledge  of  human  rights,  are,  one  after  anoth- 
er, putting  away  slavery.  Even  the  Bey  of  Tunis 
puts  away  this  most  foul  and  guilty  thing :  and 
says,  that  he  does  so  "  for  the  glory  of  mankind, 
and  to  distinguish  them  from  the  brute  creation." 
But  America,  poor  slavery-ridden  and  slavery- 
cursed  America,  retrogrades.  Whilst  other  na- 
tions grow  in  regard  for  human  rights,  she  grows 
in  contempt  for  them.  Whilst  other  nations  rise 
in  the  sunlight  of  civilization,  she  sinks  in  the 
night  of  barbarism.  Her  Congress  sets  up  slavery 
in  her  very  Capital.  Her  Congress  regulates 
and  protects  the  coastwise  trade  in  slaves.  Her 
Congress  wages  unprovoked  and  plundering  wars 
for  the  extension  of  slavery.  Her  Congress  de- 
crees, that  slaveholders  shall  have  the  range  of 
all  America,  in  which  to  reduce  men,  women, 
and  children,  to  slavery.  And  her  President,  who 
calls  slavery  an  "admitted  right,"  was  shameless 
enough  to  say,  in  his  Inaugural,  that  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act,  which  his  predecessor  was  shameless 
enough  to  sign,  should  be  "cheerfully"  enforced. 
In  short,  the  Federal  Government  i3  now,  and 
long  has  been,  at  work,  more  to  uphold  slavery 
than  to  do  anything  else,  or  even  all  things  else. 
The  great  slave-catcher  1  the  great  watch-dog  of 
slavery ! — these  are  its  most  fitting  names,  in  its 
present  employment  and  degradation.  And,  yet, 
notwithstanding  all  this  devotion  of  the  Federal 
Government  to  slavery,  and  the  iron  determina- 
tion of  the  slave-owners,  that  the  power  of  the 
whole  nation  shall  be  exerted  to  uphold  it  ;  there, 
nevertheless,  can  be  no  remonstrance  from  the 
North  against  slavery,  which  is  not  immediately 
followed  by  the  truthless  and  impudent  reply, 
that  the  North  has  nothing  to  do  with  slavery  I 
That  the  American  people  and  American  Govern- 
ment have  fallen  to  what  they  are,  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at.  It  is  but  the  natural  and  necessary 
result  of  their  having  fostered  and  fed,  for  more 
than  half  a  century,  the  monster  slavery.  Time 
was,  when  Ave  might  have  crushed  this  monster. 
But,  now,  it  has  crushed  us.  It  has  corrupted 
us  to  such  an  extent,  that  there  is  scarcely  a 
sound  spot  left  in  U3,  at  which  to  begin  to  rally 
opposition  to  it.  On  no  cheaper  condition  than 
this  can  slavery  be  clung  to.  If  we  will  be  slave- 
holders— and  such  are  the  Northern  as  well  as  the 
Southern  people — for  if  the  slave-owners  are  at  the 
South,  the  people  of  the  North  are,  nevertheless, 
more  emphatically,  because  more  efficiently,  the 
slaveholder.?,  than  are  the  people  of  the  South — if, 
I  say,  we  will  be  slaveholders,  we  must  take  the 
evil  consequences  upon  our  own  understandings 
and  hearts,  and  not  be  surprised  at  them.  Men 
cannot  bind  the  degrading  chain  of  slavery 
around  their  brothers  without  at  the  same  time 
binding  and  degrading  themselves  with  it. 

How  melancholy  upon  our  country,  and, 
through  hereupon  the  world,  has  been  the  influ- 
ence of  American  slavery  1  In  the  beginniug  of 
our  national  existence,  we  were  the  moral  and 
political  light-house  of  the  world.  The  nations, ; 
» which  sat  in  darkness,  saw  the  great  light,"  ; 


and  rejoiced.  Sad  to  say,  we  were  ourselves  the 
first  to  dim  that  light !  The  principles,  which  we 
then  enunciated,  electrified  the  nations.  Sad  to 
say.  we  were  ourselves  the  first  to  dishonor  those 
principles  1  Nothing,  so  much  as  American  sla- 
very, has  gathered  darkness  upon  that  light- 
Nothing,  so  much  as  American  slavery,  has 
brought  disgrace  upon  those  principles.  All  other 
causes  combined  have  not  stood  so  effectually  in 
the  way  of  the  progress  of  republicanism,  as  the 
glaring  inconsistency  of  our  deeds  with  our  pro- 
fessions. In  the  house  of  her  friends,  Liberty  has 
received  her  deepest  stabs.  All  our  boasts  and 
falsehoods  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  there 
is  no  Government  on  the  face  of  the  earth  so 
quick  as  our  own,  to  dread,  and  to  oppose,  popu- 
lar movements  in  behalf  of  liberty  and  republican- 
ism. On  our  Government,  more  than  on  all  other 
causes  put  together,  rests  the  responsibility  of 
the  stopping  of  the  Revolution  in  the  Spanish 
American  States.  We  are  wont  to  say,  that 
the  people  of  those  States  were  incompetent  to 
perfect  that  Revolution.  This  is  a  piece  of  our 
hypocrisy.  The  instructions  of  our  Government 
and  the  discussions  in  our  National  Legislature^ 
in  regard  to  the  Congress  of  Panama  ;  our  threat 
of  war  against  Colombia  and  Mexico,  if  those 
States  persevered  in  carrying  forward  the  Revolu- 
tion ;  and,  above  all,  our  base  supplication  to 
Russia  and  Spain  to  join  us  in  stopping  the  wheels 
of  that  Revolution ;  prove  conclusively,  that 
though  our  lying  lips  were  for  liberty,  our  hearts, 
all  the  time,  were  concernedjout  for  the  protection 
of  slavery.  And,  in  the  case  of  Hayti — how  deadly, 
from  first  to  last,  has  been  the  enmity  of  our 
Government  to  the  cause  of  liberty  and  repub- 
canism  !  To  learn  the  extent  of  that  enmity,  we 
must  not  confine  our  eye  to  the  haughty  and  per- 
severing refusal  of  our  Government  to  recognize 
the  independence  of  Hayti.  We  must  look  at 
other  things  also — and  especially  at  the  servile 
compliance  of  our  Government  with  the  impudent 
and  arrogant  demand  of  Napoleon  to  carry  out 
his  plan  of  starving  the  Haytiens  into  submission. 
Our  Government  made  a  display  of  sympathy 
with  the  European  Revolutions  of  1848.  But  who 
is  so  stupid,  as  to  accord  sincerity  to  that  display, 
when  he  recollects,  that  the  very  first  fruit  of  the 
very  first  of  these  Revolutions  was  the  unqualified 
abolition  of  all  French  slavery — and  a  part  of 
that  slavery  in  the  neighborhood  of  our  own  ? 
So  eager  was  our  Government  to  appear  to  be  on 
the  side  of  Hungary,  that  it  sent  out  a  ship  for 
Kossuth.  But,  long  ere  he  had  reached  our 
shores  ;  and,  especially,  whilst  he  was  making  his 
speeches  in  England  in  behalf  of  the  equal  rights 
of  all  men ;  our  Government  found  out,  that  it  had 
got  more  than  it  contracted  for.  Kossuth's  prin- 
ciples were  too  radical.  Their  scope  was  quite 
too  sweeping.  They  no  more  spared  slavery  than 
any  other  form  of  oppression.  Yet,  Government 
could  not  stop  Kossuth  on  his  way.  Having 
started  for  America,  he  must  be  suffered  to  come 
to  America.  But  how  great  his  disappointment, 
on  his  arrival !  M  He  came  unto  his  own.  and  his 
!  own  received  him  not."  The  poor  man  was  will- 
j  ing  to  compromise  matters.  A  thousand  pities, 
I  that  he  was.    He  was  willing  to  ignore  slavery, 


20 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  :  NO  SLAVERY 


and  to  go  through  the  whole  length  and  breadth 
of  the  land,  seeing,  in  every  man  he  met,  nothing 
else  than  a  glorious  freeman.  Alas,  wh&t  a  mis- 
take !  The  policy  of  the  Government  "  to  give 
him  the  cold  shoulder  "  vras  fixed ;  and  no  con- 
cessions or  humiliations  on  his  part  could  suffice 
to  repeal  it.  Kossuth  left  America — and  he  left 
it,  no  less  abundantly  than  painfully  convinced, 
that  America  is  one  thing  in  the  Declaration  of 
Lidependence,  and  another  in  what  has  succeed- 
ed it  J  one  thing  in  her  professions,  and  another 
in  her  practice.  Will  Mazzini  need  to  come  to 
America  to  learn  this  lesson  ?  And,  if  he  comes, 
will  he  stoop  to  repeat  Kossuth's  mistakes? 
Thank  God  !  Mazzini  has  already  identified  him- 
self with  the  American  abolitionists.  May  he 
find  himself  rewarded  by  their  cordial  identifica- 
tion of  themselves  with  the  oppressed  of  Europe  ! 

I  confessed,  that  my  hope  is  not  strong,  that 
the  American  Government  will  abolish  American 
slavery.  Far  otherwise  would  it  be,  however,  did 
none,  but  slave-owners,  justify  slavery.  They 
would  soon  be  converted,  were  it  not,  that  the 
mass  of  the  American  people  fall  in  with  them, 
and  flatter  them,  and  cry  peace,  when  there  is  no 
peace.  This  is  our  great  discouragement  in  the 
case.  The  advocates  of  total  abstinence  are  not 
discouraged.  They  would  be,  however,  if  they 
found  the  mass  of  the  sober  justifying  drunkards, 
and  telling  them,  that  drunkenness  is  right. 

I  said,  at  an  early  stage  of  my  remarks,  that  the 
present  attempt,  of  slavery  to  clutch  all  the  unor- 
ganized territory  of  the  nation  affords  a  favorable 
opportunity  to  freedom  to  push  back  the  war  into 
the  realm  of  slavery.  I,  however,  did  not  add, 
that  the  opportunity  would  b&  improved.  Nor  do 
I  add  it  now : — for  I  am  far  from  certain,  that  it 
will  be.  For  many  years,  I  have  had  scarcely 
any  better  hope  for  American  slavery,  than  that 
it  would  come  to  a  violent  and  miserable  end. 
Their  habit  of  courting  and  worshipping  the 
Slave-power,  and  of  acquiescing  in  its  demands, 
has  corrupted  and  paralyzed  the  American  peo- 
ple to  such  a  decree,  as  to  leave  little  room  to 
nope,  that  they  will  bring  slavery  to  a  peaceful 
and  happy  termination.  I  confess,  some  little 
hope  of  such  termination  has  been  kindled  in 
me  by-  this  new,  surprising,  and  enormous  de- 
mand of  the  sla  ve-power.  1  confess,  that  I  have 
thought  it  possible,  that  this  demand  might  ; 
arouse  a  spirit,  which  could  be  appeased  by  noth-  j 
ing  short  of  the  overthrow  of  the  whole  system  of, 
Slavery.  Should,  however,  such  a  spirit  be 
aroused,  I  fear  it  will  not  pervade  the  masses,  but 
will  be  confined  to  a  few.  It  is  true,  that  meet- 
ings are  held,  all  over  the  free  States,  to  protest 
against  the  passage  of  this  Bill ;  and  that  the 
press  of  those  States  is  almost  universally  against 
it.  But  neither  in  the  meetings,  nor  in  the  press, 
do  I  see  repentance.  They  abound  in  indignation 
toward  perfidy: — but  they  reveal  no  sorrow  of  the 
North  for  the  crimes  of  the  North  against  liberty; 
On  the  contrary,  the  meetings  and  the  press  do 
well  nigh  universally  justify  the  Compromise  of 
1820,  and,  in  the  great  majority  of  instances,  the  j 
Compromise  of  1850,  "  Fugitive  Slave  Act,"  and  I 
all.  Even  in  sermons,  preached  against  the  Ne-  j 
braska  Bill,  I  have  seen  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  | 


justified.  -Now,  the  idea,  that  they,  who  can  ap- 
prove of  either  of  these  Compromises,  and  espe- 
cially that  they,  who  can,  possibly,  acquiesce  in 
the  chasing  down  of  men,  women,  and  children, 
for  the  purpose  of  casting  them  into  the  pit  of 
slavery — the  idea,  I  say,  that  such  persons  will 
perseveringly  and  effectively  resist  slavery,  and 
do  faithful  battle  for  its  overthrow,  is  to  my  mind 
simply  absurd.  They,  and  they  only,  are  to  be 
relied  on  for  such  service,  who  so  loathe  slavery, 
that  they  would  rather  perish  than  do  any  of  its 
biddings,  come  those  biddings  from  Congress,  or 
from  Courts,  or  from  any  other  sources. 

Am  I  bid  to  strengthen  my  hope  by  looking  at 
the  rapidly  multiplying  abolitionists  ?  I  do  look 
at  them :  and  this  cheering  sight  is  all,  that, 
under  God,  keeps  my  hope  alive.  But  I  fear,  that 
they  are  too  late.  I  fear,  that  the  disease  is  past 
cure.  And  I  fear,  too,  that,  even  if  we  are  yet  in 
time  to  kill  the  Demon  of  Slavery,  our  false  and 
pro-slavery  education  makes  us  so  hesitating  and 
timid  in  his  terrific  presence,  that  we  shall  not 
wage  direct,  deep,  and  fatal  war  upon  him,  but 
shall  waste  our  energies  and  our  only  and  swiftly 
passing  away  opportunity  in  ineffectual  skirmish- 
es and  disgraceful  dodgings.  A  few  abolitionists 
are  consistent :  and,  were  they  not  so  few,  they 
would  be  formidable.  They  know  no  law  for  any 
fraud;  and,  therefore,  they  will  not  know  it  for 
the  most  stupendous  fraud.  They  know  no  law 
for  any  oppression  ;  and,  therefore,  they  will  know 
none  for  the  most  sweeping  oppression.  Such 
abolitionists  are  Garrison  and  Phillips,  Goodell 
and  Douglass.  But  most  abolitionists,  impliedly 
if  not  directly,  tacitly  if  not  openly,  acknowledge, 
that  slavery  can  have,  and  actually  has,  rights  : 
and  they  are  as  respectful  to  these  supposed 
rights,  as  if  the  subject  of  them  were  one  of  the 
greatest  earthly  blessings,  instead  of  one  of  the 
greatsst  earthly  curses. 

It  is  true,  that  there  is  a  political  party  in  our 
country,  organized  against  slavery  ;  and  that  it 
numbers  some  two  hundred  thousand  voters, 
among  whom  are  some  of  the  noblest  men  in  the 
land.  And,  yet,  I  look  with  well  nigh  as  much 
sorrow,  as  hope,  to  this  party.  For  so  long  as  it 
recognizes  slavery  as  law,  I  fear,  that  .notwith- 
standing its  high  and  holy  purposes,  it  will  do 
scarcely  less  to  sanction  and  uphold  slavery  than 
to  reproach  and  cast  it  down.  Again,  so  long  as 
this  party  is  swayed  by  such  words  of  folly  ami 
delusion,  as  "  Slavery  sectional  :  Freedom  na- 
tional," its  admissions  in  favor  of  slavery  cannot 
fail  to  go  far  to  outweigh  all  its  endeavors  against 
slavery. 

A  law  for  slavery !  "What  confessed  madness 
would  it  be  to  claim  a  law  for  technical  piracy, 
or  a  law  for  murder!  But  what  piracy  is  there 
so  sweeping  and  desolating  as  slavery  ?  And,  as 
to  murder — who  would  not  rather  have  his  dear- 
est friend  in  the  grave — ay,  in  the  grave  of  the 
murdered — than  under  the  yoke  of  slavey? 

"  Slavery  sectional  :  Freedom  national  !  " 
And,  therefore,  according  to  the  friends  of  this 
motto,  the  nation,  as  such,  must  not  concern  itself 
with  the  great  mass  of  slavery,  because  that  great 
mass,  instead  of  being  spread  over  the  whole  na- 
tion, exists  but  in  sections  of  it.    Not  less  foolish 


IN  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


21 


would  it  be  to  neglect  the  smallpox,  because  it  I  To  hope,  that,  because  the  English  Government 
is  only  in  sections  of  the  city  that  it  prevails,  abolished  slavery,  our  Governments  will  also,  is 
Indeed,  it  would  not  be  les3  mad  to  leave  the  fire  ;  unwise,  in  another  point  of  view.  Comparatively 
unextinguished,  because,  as  yet,  it  rages  but  in  disentangled  with  slavery  as  was  England,  sla- 
sec lions  of  the  city.  Slavery,  if  not  extinguished, !  very,  nevertheless,  exerted  well  nigh  enough 
is  as  certain  to  spread,  as  is  the  fire,  if  not  extin-  j  power  over  her  Government  to  prevent  its  suc- 
pusbed.  The  past  attests  this  ;  and  the  present :  cessful  action  against  slavery.  The  party  in  the 
exhibits  very  glaring  proof  of  it.  If  we  wouhi  j  interest  of  slavery  was  barely  defeated, 
save  the  city,  we  must  put  out  the  fife.  If  we  Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  Let  me  not  bo 
would  save  the  nation,  we  must  put  out  slavery —  supposed  to  fear,  that  American  slavery  will  not 
ay,  put  it  out  in  all  the  nation.  I  said,  that  sla-  come  to  an  end.  My  fear  is,  that  it  will  not 
very  is,  now,  spreading.  It  may  not  go  literally  j  be  brought  to  an  end  by  Government.  I  have  no 
into  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  either  now  or  ever,  i  fear,  that  it  will  not  be  abolished.  It  will  be 
Nevertheless,  slavery  will  be  spreading  itself  over  abolished — and  at  no  distant  day.  If  the  Gov-' 
our  country,  at  least  in  its  influence  and  power,  ernments  fail  to  abolish  it,  it  will  abolish  itself, 
so  long  as  the  nation  forbears \o  uproot  it.  The  colored  people  of  this  nation,  bond  and  free, 

"  Slavery  sectional  :  Freedom  national  \  "  number  four  millions,  and  are  multiplying  rap- 
A  poor  flag  would  <:  Murder  sectional :  Anti-Mur-  idly.  They  are  all  victims  of  slavery — for  if  the 
der  national ! "  be  to  go  forth  with  against  mur-  I  free  are  not  in  the  umbra,  they  are,  nererthe- 
der.  But  not  less  poor  is  the  other  to  go  forth  |  less,  in  the  penumbra,  of  slavery.  Hence,  then,  a3 
with  against  slavery.  Very  little  inspiration  j  well  as  by  identity  of  race,  they  are  bound  to- 
couid  be  caught  from  either.  Nay,  would  not  i  gether  by  the  strongest  sympathy.  Moreover,  if 
their  limited  toleration  of  the  crimes  neutralize  '  not  carried  along,  as  rapidly  as  others,  neverthe- 
their  influence  against  the  extension  of  the  crimes?  less  they  are  carried  along,  in  the  general  pro- 
How  unlike  to  these  poor  words  would  be  "  No  !  gressive  knowledge  of  human  rights.  Such  being 
murder  anywhere  !"  "  No  slavery  anywhere  !  "  { the  case,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  they  can 
Under  such  earnest  and  honest  words,  men  could  <'  be  held  in  their  present  condition,  for  ages  longer, 
do  battle  with  all  their  hearts.  But,  under  the  !  They  will  deliver  themselves,  if  they  are  not  de- 
other,  they  are  laughed  at  by  the  enemy  ;  and  j  livered.  He  must  be  blind  to  history,  to  philoso- 
should  be  laughed  at  by  themselves.  i  phy,  to  the  nature  of  man,  who  can  suppose,  that 

.  There  is  a  political  party  at  the  North,  called  j  such  a  system,  as  American  slavery,  can  have  a 
the  Liberty  Party.  It  aims  to  go  for  every  polit-  ,  long  life,  even  in  circumstances  most  favorable  to 
ical  truth ;  and  to  realize  the  idea  of  an  every  j  its  continuance.  In  the  most  benighted  portions 
way  righteous  civil  Government.  It  is  a  little  i  of  the  earth,  the  victims  of  such  a  system  would, 
party.  I?s  handful  of  members  are  scarcely  more  !  in  process  of  time,  come  to  such  a  sense  of  their 
numerous  than  were  the  primitive  disciples,  who  :  wrongs,  and  their  power  also,  as  to  rise  up  and 
were  gathered  in  the  upper  room,  at  Jerusalem. '  throw  off  the  system.  But  that,  here,  such  a 
That  little  party  will  not  disown  what  I  have  I  system  must  be  hurried  to  its  end,  is  certain, 
said  on  this  occasion.  Every  other  party  will.  ;  For,  here,  it  is  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  all 
That  little  party  has,  already,  lived  some  fifteen  !  the  institutions  around  it,  and  with  all  the  profes- 
years.  It  will  continue  to  live.  Perhaps,  it  will !  sions  of  those,  who  uphold  it.  Here  it  is  continually 
not  grow.  Perhaps  it  will.  The  "  little  cloud,  '  pressed  upon  by  ten  thousand  influences  adverse 
like  a  man's  hand,"  may  yet  spread  itself  over  the  '  to  its  existence.  Nothing,  so  much  as  American 
whole  heavens.  Of  thi3  much,  at  least,  do  I  feel  J  slavery,  stands  in  the  way  of  the  progress  of  the 
certain,  that  no  party  of  essentially  lower  or  other  j  age.  A  littletime  longer,  and  it  must  yield  to 
principles  than  those  of  the  Liberty  Party  will j  this  progress,  and  be  numbered  with  the  things, 
suffice  to  bring  down  American  slavery.  Happy  j  that  were.  The  only  question  is,  whether  it  shall 
country  this — happy  North — happy  South — if  the  '  die  a  peaceful,  or  a  violent,  death  —  whether  it 
present  aggressive  movement  of  the  slave-power  j  shall  quietly  recede  before  advancing  truth,  or 
shall  result  in  bringing  triumphant  accessions  to  resist  unto  blood. 


the  Liberty  Party ! 

My  fear,  that  the  American  Governments, 
State  or  National,  will  not  abolish  slavery,  is,  in 
no  decree,  abated  by  the  fact,  that  several  Euro- 
pean Governments  have,  in  the  present  genera- 
tion, abolished  it.  It  must  be  remembered,  that 
those  Governments  were  exterior  to,  and  independ- 
ent of,  the  slave-power ;  and  that  they  were  not 


God  forbid,  that  American  slavery  should  come 
to  a  violent  end.  I  hold,  with  CTConnell,  that  no 
revolution  is  worth  the  shedding  of  blood.  A 
violent  end  to  American  slavery  would  constitute 
one  of  the  bloodiest  chapters  in  all  the  book  of 
time.  It  would  be  such  a  reckoning  for  deep 
and  damning  wrongs — such  an  outbursting  of 
smothered  and  pent-up  revenge,  as  living  man 


trammelled  by  slaveholding  constituencies.  It  is  j  ha3  never  seen.  Cau  this  catastrophe  be  avert- 
true,  that  slavery  in  Mexico  was  abolished  by  the  j  ed?  Perhaps,  it  cannot.  Perhaps,  God  will  not 
Government  in  Mexico  ;  and  that  slavery  in  South  j  let  off  this  superlatively  wicked  nation  on  any 
American  States  was  abolished  by  the  Govern-  i  easier  terms  than  a  servile  war — a  war,  we  mu.<t 
ments  in  those  State3.  But  it  is  also  true,  that  j  remember,  that  will  be  very  like  to  bring  within 
all  this  was  done  to  promote  the  success  of  their  j  its  wide  sweep  the  whole  black  population  of 
Revolution  and  their  deliverance  from  the  Gov- j  this  continent  and  the  neighboring  islands  —  a 
crnment  of  Spain.  I  doubt  not,  that  even  we,  '  population  already  numbering  some  ten  or  twelve 
closelv  as  we  cling  to  slavery,  would,  nevertheless,  millions.  Perhaps,  since  we  would  be  a  nation 
aboli/h  it,  if  urged  to  do  so  by  the  exigencies  of  war.  of  oppressors,  He  will  let  the  oppressed  smite  tie 


22 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA  !  NO  SLAVERY 


oppressors.  Perhaps,  since  we  would  be  a  bloody- 
nation,  He  will  give  us  "blood,  even  unto  the 
horse-bridles."  There  will  be  no  such  catas- 
trophe, however,  if  the  North  and  the  South, 
equal  sinners  in  the  matter  of  slavery,  shall 
hasten  to  mingle  the  tears  of  their  penitence ; 
to  say  from  the  heart:  "We  are  verily  guilty 
concerning  our  brother:"  and  to  join  their  hands 
in  putting  away  their  joint  and  unsurpassed  sin. 

1  shall  be  blamed  for  having  treated  my  sub- 
ject in  the  light  of  so  severe  a  morality.  It  will 
be  said,  that  economical  views  of  it  would  have 
been  more  suitable  and  statesmanlike ;  and  that 
I  should  have  dwelt  upon  the  gains  to  the  slave- 
holder, and  the  gains  to  the  country,  from  the 
abolition  of  slavery.  I  confess,  that,  had  horses 
and  oxen  been  the  subject  of  my  speech,  the  field 
of  economy  would  have  been  wide  enough  for 
the  range  of  my  thoughts,  and  the  course  of  my 
argument.  But  I  have  been  speaking  of  men — of 
millions  of  immortals:  and  I  have  been  claiming, 
that  Government  should  lift  them  up  out  of  their 
chattelhood  and  their  association  with  brutes : 
and  I  could  not  so  disparage  the  dignity,  and  so 
gully  the  glory,  of  their  manhood,  as  to  claim  the 
performance  of  this  high  and  holy  duty,  in  the 
name  of  money.  When  I  see  my  fellow-man 
reduced  to  a  slave,  I  demand  his  deliverance, 
simply  because  he  is  a  man.  I  cannot  so  wrong 
his  exalted  nature  and  my  own,  and  the  Great 
One,  who  made  us  in  His  own  image,  as  to  argue, 
tli at  money  can  be  made  by  such  deliverance.  I 
would  as  soon  think  of  making  a  calculation  of 
pecuniary  gains  my  argument  in  dissuading  from 
the  crime  of  murder. 

In  saying,  that  I  would  not  suffer  the  duty  of 
delivering  the  slave  to  turn  upon  the  question  of 
pecuniary  gains  and  economical  advantages,  I 
utter  no  peculiar  doctrine.  "Who  would  suffer  it 
thus  to  turn,  in  any  case,  where  he  regards  such 
victims  as  men?  But,  with  me,  all  men  are  men. 
Are  the  skin  and  the  mind  of  my  fellow-man 
dark ?  "A  man's  a  man  for  a'  that ! "  I  still 
recognize  him,  as  a  man.  He  is  my  brother :  and 
I  still  have  a  brother's  heart  for  him.  Suppose 
the  Government  of  Pennsylvania  had,  the  last 
week,  reduced  all  the  white  people  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, who  have  light  hair,  to  slavery.  Would 
Congress  let  the  present  week  expire,  without 
seeking  their  release  ?  No !  Would  Congress 
stoop  to  ply  that  Government  with  arguments 
drawn  from  political  economy,  and  to  coax  it 
with  prospects  of  gain?  No!  no! — a  thousand 
times  no!  It  would  demand  their  release:  and 
it  would  demand  it,  too,  not  in  virtue  of  feeble 
arguments  and  humble  authority; — but,  Ethan 
Allen-like,  in  the  name  of  God  Almighty  and  the 
Congress. 

I  shall  be  blamed  for  not  having  brought  out  a 
plan  for  getting  rid  of  slavery.  I  confess,  that  I 
have  no  other  plan  for  getting  rid  of  it  but  its 
abolition — its  unconditional,  entire,  and  imme- 
diate abolition.  The  slave  is  robbed  of  his  man- 
hood, of  himself,  and,  consequently,  of  all  his 
rights.  There  is  no  justice  then — there  is  no 
God  then — if  the  restoration  of  his  rights  and  his 
restoration  to  himself  can  be  innocently  con- 
ditioned on  anything,  or  innocently  postponed. 


I  shall  be,  especially,  blamed  for  not  having 
proposed  compensation.  I  do  not  repudiate — I 
never  have  repudiated  —  the  doctrine  of  com- 
pensation. Compensation  for  his  services  and 
sufferings  would  be  due  from  the  slaveholder  to 
the  slave  ;  but,  clearly,  no  compensation  for,  his 
restored  liberty  would  be  due  from  the  slave 
to  the  slaveholder.  I  admit,  however,  that  a 
great  debt  would  be  due,  from  the  American 
people,  both  to  the  slaveholder  and  the  slave. 
The  American  people  are  responsible  for  Ameri- 
can slavery.  It  is  the  American  people,  who,  in 
the  face  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
the  Constitution,  as  well  as  of  religion  and 
reason,  God  and  humanity,  have  made  them- 
selves the  responsible  enslavers  of  millions.  De- 
parted generations  of  slaves  have  gone  to  the 
bar  of  Heaven  with  this  accusation  upon  their 
lips  ;  and  nothing  short  of  the  repentance  of  the 
American  people  can  prevent  its  being  carried 
there  by  the  present  generation  of  American 
slaves.  There  is,  then,  a  great  debt  due  from  the 
American  people  to  the  American  slaves.  But 
they  owe  one  to  the  slaveholders  also.  Men 
become  slaveholders,  and  continue  slaveholders, 
and  extend  their  investments  in  human  flesh,  on 
the  faith  of  the  professions,  legislation,  and  policy 
of  the  American  people,  and,  I  may  add,  on  the 
faith  of  the  Constitution  and  religion  of  the 
American  people,  as  that  people  do  themselves 
interpret  their  Constitution  and  religion.  Again, 
non-slaveholders,  as  well  as  slaveholders,  feed 
and  clothe  themselves  upon  the  cheap — (cheap, 
because  extorted  and  unpaid  for) — products  of 
slave  labor.  They  enrich  their  commerce  with 
these  products ;  and,  in  a  word,  they  unite  in 
making  slavery  the  cherished  and  overshadowing 
interest  of  the  nation.  Now,  for  the  American 
people,  in  these  circumstances,  to  abolish  slavery, 
and  refuse  to  pay  damages  to  the  slaveholders, 
would  be  a  surprise  upon  the  slaveholders  full  of 
bad  faith.  For  the  American  people  to  share 
with  the  slaveholders  in  the  policy  and  profits  of 
slavcholding,  and  then  terminate  it,  and  devolve 
the  whole  loss  of  its  termination  on  the  slave- 
holders, would  be  well  nigh  unparalleled  injus- 
tice and  meanness.  If  I  have  encouraged  and 
drawn  men  into  wickedness,  I  am,  it  is  true,  not 
to  stand  by  them  in  their  wickedness — for  of  that 
both  they  and  I  are  to  repent : — but  I  am  to  stand 
by  them  in  their  loss,  and  to  share  it  with  them. 
The  English  people  gave  to  the  masters  of  eight 
hundred  thousand  slaves  a  hundred  millions  of 
dollars.  I  would,  that  the  American  people,  after 
they  shall  have  abolished  American  slavery,  might 
give  to  the  masters  of  four  times  that  number  of 
slaves  four  times  the  hundred  millions  of  dollars  ; 
and  far  more,  would  I,  that  they  should  provide 
liberally  for  the  humbler  and  cheaper,  but  in-' 
finitely  more  sacred,  needs  of  the  emancipated. 
"Then"  my  now  dark  and  guilty  country !  "shall 
thy  light  break  forth  as  the  morning,  and  thine 
health  spring  forth  speedily ;  and  thy  righteous- 
ness shall  go  before  thee :  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  thy  rereward." 

I  am  well  aware,  that,  in  reply  to  my  admis- 
sion, that  the  American  people  should  thus  buF- 
|  den  themselves,  it  will  be  said,  that  slavery  is  a 


IN  THE  NATION  :  SLAVERY  AN  OUTLAW. 


State,  and  not  a  National  concern ;  and  that  it  is 
for  the  State  Governments,  and  not  for  the  Na- 
tional Government,  to  dispose  of  it.  I,  certainly, 
do  not  deny,  that,  if  slavery  can  be  legalized  in 
tfur  country,  it  must  be  under  the  State  Govern- 
ments only.  Nevertheless,  I  hold,  that  every 
part  of  American  slavery  is  the  concern  of  every 
part  of  the  American  people,  because  the  whole 
American  people  and  the  American  Government 
have,  though  in  defiance  of  the  Constitution, 
made  it  such.  And,  as  they  have  made  it  such, 
i/<6  denationalizing  of  slavery,  (as  the  phrase  is  with 
the  Independent  or  Free  Democrats.)  is  not  the 
whole  duty,  to  which  we  are  called.  We  will  not 
have  done  our  whole  duty,  when  we  shall  have 
abolished  all  the  slavery,  which  exists  within  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Congress.  For  slavery, 
under  the  State  Governments  also,  has  been  fos- 
tered and  established  by  the  whole  American 
people  and  the  American  Government: — and  I 
add.  by  the  way,  that,  had  it  not  been  so  fostered 
and  established,  there  would,  at  this  day,  have 
been  no  slavery  in  the  land. 

If  John  Smith  has  built  a  distillery:  and  if  he 
has.  also,  encouraged  his  neighbors  to  build  half 
a  dozen  more ;  and,  especially,  if  he  has  patron- 
ized and  profited  by  the  half  dozen  distilleries  ;  i 
then,  his  work  of  repentance  is  not  all  done,  when 
he  has  broken  up  his  distillery : — and,  none  the 
more  is  it  all  done,  because  it  was  contrary  to 

Ilaw,  that  he  had  a  part  in  getting  up  and  sustain- 
ing the  half  dozen  distilleries.    The  dc- Smith  inn 
Of  all  this  distillation,  and  of  all  the  drunkenness,  ! 
that  has  resulted  from  it,  obviously  fails  to  cover  I 
the  whole  ground  of  his  duty,  unless,  indeed,  as  { 
I    Is  prope?,  the  de-Smithing  is  interpreted  to  mean  I 
the  breaking  up  of  all  these  distilleries  and  their  | 
resulting  drunkenness.    So,  too,  the  denational-  I 
izing  of  slavery,  unless  it  be  thus  broadly  and 
I    justly  interpreted,  falls  short  of  the  measure  of 
'    the  duty  of  the  nation.    The  nation,  whether  j 
I    constitutionally  or  unconstitutionally,  has  built  | 
i    up  slavery:  and,  therefore,  the  nation  should  end 
,    it,  and  pay  to  end  it. 

*     I  said,  that  I  shall  be  blamed  for  speaking  un- 
!      isely  on  the  subject  of  slavery.    I  add,  that  I 
1  '     \\\  be  blamed  for  speaking  on  it,  at  all.  To 
I  [1     lk  against  slavery  in  any  manner,  and,  espe- 
\  chilly"  hi  the  national  councils,  is  construed 
hostility  to  the  Union  : — and  hostility  to  the 
I  -\  is,  in  the  eye  of  American  patriotism,  the 
I  /.  odious  of  all  offences — the  most  heinous  of 
['crimes. 

I  prize  the  Union,  because  I  prize  the  wisdom, 
Airage,  philanthropy,  and  piety,  of  which  it  was 
begotten.  I  prize  it,  because  I  prize  the  signal 
sufferings  and  sacrifices,  which  it  cost  our  fathers. 
I  prize  it,  because  I  prize  its  objects — those  great 
and  glorious  objects,  that  prompted  to  the  Dec- 

w\  laration  of  Independence;  that  were  cherished 
through  a  seven  years'  war;  and  that  were  then 

'  I  recited  in  the  Preamble  of  the  Constitution,  as 
the  objects  of  the  Constitution.  I  prize  it,  for  the 

£  I  great  power  it  has  to  honor  God  and  bless  man. 

II  prize  it,  because  I  believe  the  day  will  come, 
hen  this  power  shall  be  exerted  to  this  end. 
™  surely,  opposition  to  slavery  cannot  be 
**'oh  a  Union.    Such  a  Union  is  not. 


assailed,  and  cannot  be  endangered,  by  opposi- 
tion, however  strenuous,  to  slavery,  or  to  any 
other  form  of  oppression,  or  to  any  other  system 
of  iniquity.  To  attack  what  is  good,  is  to  be 
hostile  to  such  a  Union.  To  attack  what  is  evil, 
is  to  befriend  it. 

Nevertrfeless,  the  position  is  persisted  in,  that 
to  altack  slavery  is  to  attack  the  Union.  How 
are  we  to  account  for  this  persistence  in  this  ab- 
surd position  ?  It  is  easily  accounted  for.  The 
position  is  not  absurd.  There  are  tiro  Unions. 
There  is  the  Union  of  early  times — that,  which 
our  fathers  formed,  and  the  most  authentic  rec- 
ord of  the  formation  of  which,  and  of  the  spirit 
and  objects  of  which,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  and  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. This  is  the  Union  openly  based  on  the  doc- 
trine of  the  equal  rights  of  all  men.  This  is  the 
Union,  the  avowed  purpose  of  which  is  '-to  estab- 
lish justice  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty." 
Then,  there  is  the  other  Union — the  Union  of 
later  times — of  our  times — manufactured,  on  the 
one  hand,  by  Southern  slaveholders,  and,  on  the 
other,  by  Northern  merchants  and  Noithernjpoli- 
ticians.  The  professed  aims  of  this  new  cnion 
are,  of  course,  patriotic  and  beautiful.  Jts  real, 
and  but  thinly  disguised,  aims  are  extended  and 
perpetual  slavery,  on  the  one  hand,  and  political 
and  commercial  gains,  on  the  other.  The  bad 
character  of  this  new  Union  is  not  more  apparent 
in  its  aims,  than  in  its  fruits,  which  prove  these 
aims.  Among  these  fruits  are  Union  Safety 
Committee  Resolutions ;  Baltimore  platforms ; 
pro-slavery  pledges  of  members  of  Congress ; 
Resolutions  of  servile  Legislatures  ;  contemptible 
Inaugurals,  in  which,  now  a  Governor,  and  now 
a  President,  go  all  lengths  for  slavery;  and,  above 
all,  or  rather  below  all,  Union-saving  and  slave- 
catching  sermons  of  devil-deluded  and  devil- 
driven  Doctors  of  Divinity.  To  this  list  is,  now, 
to  be  added  the  stupendous  breach  of  faith,  pro- 
posed in  the  Bill  before  us.  This  Bill,  which 
lays  open  all  our  unorganized  territory  to  slavery, 
is  a  legitimate  fruit  of  the  new  Union.  The  con- 
secration of  all  the  national  territory  to  freedom, 
sixty-five  years  ago,  was  the  legitimate  fruit  of 
the  old  Union.  Which  is  the  better  Union  ?  By 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them. 

Now,  the  matter  is  not  explained  by  saying, 
that  this  new  Union  is  but  a  misinterpretation  of 
the  old.  Misinterpretation  cannot  go  so  far,  as 
to  change  the  whole  nature  of  its  subject.  Oh 
no,  it  is  not  a  misinterpretation.  But  it  is  dis- 
tinctly and  entirely  another  Union,  with  which 
its  manufacturers  arc  endeavoring  to  supplant  the 
Union  given  to  us  by  our  fathers : — and  this  sup- 
planting Union  is  as  unlike  the  precious  gift,  as 
darkness  is  unlike  light,  as  falsehood  is  unlike 
truth. 

When,  then,  we,  who  are  laboring  for  the 
overthrow  of  slavery,  and  for  the  practical  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  equal  rights  of  all  men, 
are  charged  with  hostility  to  the  Union,  it  is,  in- 
deed, pretended  by  those,  who  make  the-xharge, 
and  for  the  sake  of  effect,  that  we  are  nostiie^ to 
the  original  and  true  Union.  Our  hostility  nev- 
ertheless, is  but  to  the  coujured-up  and  spurjous 
Union.    Our  only  offence  is,  that  we  withstand 


24 


the  base  appeals  and  seductive  influences  of  the 
day.  The  only  cause,  for  the  abundant  reproach, 
•which  has  befallen  us,  is,  that,  in  our  honesty 
and  patriotism,  we  still  stand  by  that  good  old 
Union,  which  is  a  Union  for  justice  and  liberty; 
and  that  Ave  bravely  oppose  ourselve3  to  those 
artful  and  wicked  men,  who  would  substitute  for 
it  a  Union  for  slavery,  and  place,  and  gain  ;  and 
"Who  are  even  impudent  enough  to  claim,  that 
this  trumped-up  Union  is  identical  with  that 
good  old  Union.  Yes,  wicked,  artful,  impudent, 
indeed,  must  they  be,  who  can  claim,  that  this 
dirty  work  of  their  own  dirty  hands  is  that  veri- 
table work  of  our  fathers,  which  is  the  glory  of 
our  fathers. 

1  have  done.  Methinks,  were  I  a  wise  and 
good  man.  and  could  have  the  whole  American 
people  for  my  audience,  I  should  like  to  speak  to 
them,  in  the  fitting  phrase,  which  such  a  man 
commands,  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness, 
remonstrance  and  righteousness.  And,  yet.  why 
should  I  ? — for,  in  all  probability,  such  words 
jar  quid  be  of  little  present  avail.  The  American 
TPGfrijkare-  as  yet,  in  no  state  "  to  hear  with  their 
ears^f&d  understand  with  their  heart  "  —  for 
"  their  heart  is  waxed  gross,  and  their  ears  are 
dull  of  hearing."  Yet,  awhile,  and  he,  who 
should  speak  to  them  such  words,  would,  like 
Lot,  "  seem  as  one,  that  mocked."  This  is  a 
nation  of  oppressors  —  from  the  North  to  the 
South — from  the  East  to  the  West — and,  what  is 
more,  of  strong  and  successful  oppressors ; — and, 
hence,  there  is  but  little  room  to  hope,  that  she 
will  listen  and  repent.  This  nation  holds,  in  the 
iron  and  crushing  grasp  of  slavery,  between  three 
and  four  millions,  whose  poor  hearts  writhe  and 
agonize  no  less  than  would  ours,  were  their  fate 
our  fate.  And,  yet,  she  is  not  content  even  with 
these  wide  desolations  of  human  rights  and 
human  happiness.  On  the  contrary,  she  is  con- 
tinually seeking  to  extend  the  horrid  realm  of 
slavery.  It  is  not  enough,  that  she  purchased 
Louisiana,  and  gave  up,  by  far,  the  most  valuable 
part  of  it  to  slavery:  nor,  that  she  purchased 
Florida,  and  gave  up  all  of  it  to  slavery :  nor  is  it 
enough,  that  there  is  so  much  reason  to  fear,  that 
the  mighty  and  sleepless  efforts  to  overspread 
with  slavery  the  whole  territory,  of  which  she 
plundered  Mexico,  will  prove  extensively,  if  not, 
indeed,  entirely  successful.  Nor,  is  it  enough, 
that  there  is  imminent  danger,  that  Nebraska  and 
Kansas  will  be  wrested  from  freedom,  and  added 
to  the  domain  of  slavery  and  sorrow.  All  this  is 
not  enough  to  satisfy  the  desire  of  this  nation  to 
extend  the  reign  of  slavery.  Her  gloating  and 
covetous  eyes  are  constantly  upon  the  remainder 
of  Mexico  ;  upon  Cuba ;  St.  Domingo ;  and  other 
"  islands  of  the  sea."  All  these  she  is  impatient 
to  scourge  with  that  most  terrible  of  ail  forms  of 
oppression — American  slavery. 


NO  SLAVERY  IN  NEBRASKA. 


!     Said  I  not  truly,  then,  that  there  is  but  little 
ground  to  hope  for  the  repentance  of  this  nation? 
Must  she  not  be  well  nigh  dead  to  every  conceiv- 
able attempt  to  bring  her  to  repentance?  But 
she  will  not  be  so  always.  The  voices  of  truthful, 
tender,  faithful   admonition,   now   unheard  or 
despised  by  her,  will  yet  reach  her  heart.  She 
may,  it  is  true,  (Heaven  spare  her  from  the  need 
of  such  discipline  !  )  have,  first,  to  pass  through 
foreign  wars,  and  servile  wars,  and  still  other 
horrors.    But  the  day  of  her  redemption — or,  in 
other  words,  of  her  broken-hearted  sorrow  for 
her  crimes — (for  such  sorrow  is  redemption, 
whether  in  the  case  of  an  individual  or  a  nation) — > 
will,  sooner  or  later,  come.    And  when  that  day 
shall  come,  the  moral  soil  of  America,  watered 
with  the  tear3  of  penitence,  shall  bring  forth 
fruits  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  welfare  of 
man,  rivalling  in  abundance,  and  infinitely  sur- 
passing in  preciousness,  the  rich  harvests  of  he? 
literal  soil.    In  that  day,  our  nation  shall  be 
I  worthy  of  all,  that  God  and  good  men  have  done 
!  for  her.    Her  material  wealth,  surpassing  that  of 
\  any  other  nation,  shall  be  no  greater  than  her 
j  moral  wealth  :  and  her  gigantic  and  unmatched 
i  power  shall  be  only  a  power  to  bless. 
I     What  I  have  just  said  is.  indeed,  but  proph- 
I  ecy — and  the  prophecy,  too,  of  an  ignorant  and 
:  short-sighted  man  : — and  it  may,  therefore,  never 
;  be  fulfilled.    My  anticipations  of  a  beautiful  and 
I  blessed  renovation  for  my  beloved  country  may 
[  never  be  realized.    She  may  be  left  to  perish, 
and  to  perish  forever.    What  then?     Must  I 
I  cease  my  efforts  for  her  salvation  ?    Happily,  I 
i  am  not  dependent  on  prophecy  for  the  interpret^ 
j  tion  of  my  duty,  nor  to  sustain  my  fidelity,  nor  to 
i  encourage  the  opening  of  my  lips.    I  am  cast 
|  upon  no  such  uncertainty.    I  am  to  continue  to 
j  plead  for  my  country ;  and  to  feel  assured,  thai 
[  I  do  not  plead  in  vain.    If  prophecy  is  all  unccr- 
i  tain — nevertheless,  there  are  certainties,  gracious 
j  certainties,  on  which  it  i3  my  privilege  to  rely, 
i  I  know,  that  in  the  Divine  Economy,  no  honesj 
j  discharge  of  the  conscience,   and  no  faithfc1 
testimony  of  the  heart,  shall  be  suffered  to  t 
unrewarded.    I  know,  that,  in  this  perfect  and 
blessed  Economy,  no  sincere  words  in  behalf  of 
the  right  are  lost.    Time  and  truth  will  save/ 
them  from  falling  ineffectual.  To  time  and  truth,' 
|  therefore,  do  I  cordially  commit  all,  that  I  ha\ 
\  said  on  this  occasion;  and  patiently  will  I  w 
|  to  see  what  use3  time  and  truth  shall  make  of 

I  Note. — As  this  speech  was  delivered  under  *.\ 
\  one-hour  rule,  its  argument,  at  several  points, 
I  was  necessarily  brief.  In  writing  it  out  for  the 
i  press,  the  liberty  has  been  taken  to  expand  the 
j  argument,  at  some  of  these  points. 


'UIXTKUS,  WASHINGTON" ,  D.  U. 


I  WRY  I  OV^- 


